From time to time there’s still call of secession from cranks in a few states, most notably Texas but I’ve heard it from other southern states (worked so well the last time after all) and even from tinfoil hat Californians and the like.
Assuming that due to some weird allignment of Mercury, Venus and the Jonas Brothers a state or region decided to strike off on its own AND the USA sang “I Will Always Love You” and let them go, which would have the best chance of making it as a free and sovereign entity or nation?
Hawaii was of course a kingdom once, but it was basically a U.S. vassal state; before that it was bronze age. I’ve no idea whether they receive more from the U.S. than they give in taxes and tariffs and the like, but I would guess that fear of typhoons/earthquakes/volcanoes necessitating federal disaster funds and attack would keep them from being that successful.
California has ample coast and shipping ports, agricultural lands, industries, population, tax base, etc., to make a go of it, but they’re dependent on other states for potable water and have so many natural disasters (especially earthquakes and fires) that they would have major problems with treaties and the like. Ditto South Carolina- when/if the big one hits you’ll hear a lot of the neo-secessionists go quiet.
Is there any region that has enough industry/population/resources of all kinds to sustain itself indefinitely if it pulled away from the U.S.A.?
New England would probably make a decent nation if it broke off. If you do the entire northeast (including New York) then it would be even better. You’d have important cities like Boston and NYC in the new nation.
Washington might make a go of it. I think the hydroelectric power makes them energy independent, and they’ve been a huge exporter. (Boeing moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago, so that complicates things.) It might be helpful if Oregon came along, get some more arable land and no squabbling over the dams that cross the border.
I think that California, Oregon, and Washington could do fairly well. Good agriculture, some manufacturing and lots of exports from Seattle. And a pretty consistent culture, so minimal infighting on cultural borders. I’ve discussed in history classes before that one of the important factors in founding states is having all or most of the (traditionally ethnic, here more cultural) ingroup within the national boundaries, and very little of it outside. The West Coast fits this test well, as does New England.
Having just watched Ken Burns’ amazing and wonderful documentaries on the National Parks (PBS, natch), I was astounded to learn that Alaska was clamouring for secession during the Carter years (opposition to the federal govt taking great hunks of land for national parks.)
These things pop up every now and again in history. Thankfully most of the time they don’t really mean it. We’ve seen how THAT went down.
So, I agree that the west coast states would likely do well. In addition to everything else they’d have a near monopoly on west coast shipping from the rest of the old contiguous 58. It’d be even better if they could persuade British Columbia to come along.
I realize that it’s been done (by Heinlein in Friday) but a midwestern nation centered on the Chicago/Indianapolis/St Louis triangle would likely hold up well.
The mid-atlantic states: Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, and North Carolina might be able to make a go of it. If West Virginia comes along that gives them access to plenty of coal for energy AND access to the Ohio River as well as the Potomac and the Delaware. Even better if Pennsylvania comes along.
I left California out on purpose. There’s the OP’s point that they’re dependent on out-of-state sources of water[sup]*[/sup] Plus, Northwesterners don’t really see Californians as cultural kindred spirits. I used to live in Seattle. The attitude was that Californians had taken a paradise and over-populated and poluted it, and were now coming to our paradise with the risk of doing the same (and driving up house prices in the bargain).
Now that I think about it, I’m not quite sure how the other states could cut them off. It has to flow downhill eventually.
Considering that some huge portion of the nation’s perishable food is grown in CA, I don’t see them being cut off from water. Here is a mapof tax donor/debtor states. The west coast+ NV looks like a nice grouping.
For the most part, I think pretty much any association of states that create a sizable population (as in, more than 30 million or so) would probably do pretty well as an independent country. The criticism that I often see – California doesn’t have its own water, Alaska would be dependent on imported food, Southern states would depend on foreign industry, or whatever – are just sooooo 19th century.
A modern state isn’t going to practice the North Korea juche philosophy of complete self-reliance. A modern state just needs to be politically substantial enough to maintain its independent identity, and it helps to have an economic advantage that they can use as a basis for trade.
So I think it would be difficult for Rhode Island, or Montana, or New Mexico to go it alone, but if any of those states were associated with their neighbors, they’d probably be ok. Hell, if Luxembourg can become one of the wealthiest and stable countries in the world, then being a country doesn’t really demand that much.
If Texas did secede, they would be the thirteenth largest global economy. The fifth largest oil producer in the world, and the 10th largest country.
Even so, I think for it to have a chance of success a number of states would have to secede together. LA, OK, and Texas would have a much better shot that a single state.
Where does that water go if they don’t get it? If it’s into the Great Basin, you’ve got a point.
I was thinking of the Colorado River[sup]*[/sup], probably because I was just there a few weeks ago. What could Nevada do? They could shut off the taps at Hoover Dam, but eventually Lake Mead is going to be full and overflow the spillways. You can’t really stop California from slurping it up once it flows along their border.
This is also a good example of why this is outmoded thinking, as Ravenman suggests. There are international agreements about such things. A certain amount has to flow to Mexico, or they’ll be justifiably pissed. California, as part of its secession, could cut the same kind of deal. I still like the idea of the thread, though; to consider which parts of the U.S. could bring the most to the table in trying to go their own way.
Hoover Dam, as they say on the tour, was built primarily for flood control. I don’t know if California gets any from behind the dam, or if it just taps directly into the river downstream of the dam. And I think it’s used primarily for agriculture, not drinking. Still important, though.
10th largest? More like 40th! Wiki says here that it’s just under 700,000 square kilometers in area, which puts it behind Zambia (just over 750,000) on this list here.
It’s not just whether a state is large and viable, but whether it is constrained by the current federal system and would be better off setting its own policy - sort of the should-Turkey-join-the-EU debate in reverse. There’s no reason to assume outright hostility between the US and the seceding state.
In that case some of the more libertarian low-tax states might want to increase their attractiveness to business investments. Texas and New Hampshire spring to mind; in the former case they’ve done a pretty good job of attracting a medical industry with physician-friendly policies. Alaska, endowed with natural resources, could probably make a pretty good break of it as well.
If countries like Norway, New Zealand or Iceland can make a go at it, I don’t see why any state along the coast couldn’t also. Interior states might have more difficulty, but there are land locked countries in South America and Europe.
No it wouldn’t (and neither would similar claims for California). Their current economies are tied into a symbiosis with the rest of the US; left alone, the economies would shrink massively. They’d also suddenly have massive expenses (defence, for one!) and need the injection of a brand new infrastructure, as existing state goverment isn’t able to replicate everything that the federal government does.
The new country would lose so many resources it currently benefits from - including military and intelligence such as the CIA, as well as suddenly having import/export barriers to the rest of the US, let alone the world. It wouldn’t have nearly the clout that the whole US has to negotiate favourable terms on the international stage.
Don’t get me wrong - Texas and California probably could survive just fine as countries, but they’d be a lot more insignificant on their own than they are as part of the whole.
