Support NeoGAF

[OrangeGrayBlue]

You giving Cali back to Mexico too or nah

Nah. If we're approaching it from that perspective, we'd be giving Lousiana back to France and Florida to Spain.

Dude, you're an idiot.


It's very Hitler-like what you're saying.

Alright, my interest is piqued. Could you elaborate?

because the north already fought the south on that issue and won.

For different circumstances in a different time. Mind you, I don't think the US actually should secede presently, but I do think it makes for interesting discussion to consider the pros and cons of that happening (inbetween knee-jerk comparisons to Hitler.)

 

[Savitar]

Let's face it, there is only one real true out come for the future of Texas and it was shown in Judge Dredd:

Guns, gambling and giant statues of cowboys are king!

 

[phaze]

No sane man would willingly deprive his country of a large percent of the population and economic might. It's not like the region is in perpetual rebellion/civil war.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

No sane man would willingly deprive his country of a large percent of the population and economic might. It's not like the region is in perpetual rebellion/civil war.

True, on a global scale this isn't ideal for either country.

 

[Savitar]

That and let's face it, any state that would break away would still want basically everything given already provided by the US: Visas, currency, including said people who now run the place to be still paid by the government.

More or less the same crap that Quebec has tried to pull on Canada. All the benefits, none of the answering to anyone else.

And yes the Quebec separatist politicans really did expect the Canadian government to still pay them.

 

[Madness]

It's funny, I brought up a point several months ago how I felt it was the first time in a long while, that the US was so divided culturally, economically, ideologically, and politically. That it seems almost a given that secession, some kind of balkanization would take place and people laughed. But seeing questions like these, some of the recent tactics by GOP politicians, seeing the kind of voting and views happening, I can't see any other real option. Sure compromise and push and pull happens all the time, but damn.

As for OP, Texas has been one of the largest contributors to the economic growth of the US. Losing that state would have tons of economic and global consequences for the US. Currently, as long as New York, California, Texas and Florida stay together, the US will be a power.

 

[Africanus]

There are very few people in this country who legitimately want to secede, and it would create a large host of problems such as the following:
1. International travel. As the South and the North are now two different countries, border crossing would be an issue.

2. What "South" means. How does one define the South? Does it extend into California? As far up as Missouri? Will states split apart?

3. Mass migration: Depending on the economic situation of the time, and regardless of it, there will be a mass migration of people from one country to the other, creating a large vacuum of jobs and an influx of people, potentially disrupting the two economies.

4. Military: How will the military holdings be divided up? Will the South receive none of the equipment? Only the equipment located in the South? What of equipment overseas?

5. Recognition: The South failed to receive recognition 155 years ago, and it is doubtful they would receive in the present day.

6. Territorial holdings: Which country receives which territorial holdings? Does the South receive Puerto Rico? It is geographically south after all. Not to mention Guam, the Virgin Islands, and even Bajo Nuevo, a small uninhabited reef and islets.

If I had more time to continue my points I would, but in summary, succession of states (Not territories) will never happen in the near future.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

It's funny, I brought up a point several months ago how I felt it was the first time in a long while, that the US was so divided culturally, economically, ideologically, and politically. That it seems almost a given that secession, some kind of balkanization would take place and people laughed. But seeing questions like these, some of the recent tactics by GOP politicians, seeing the kind of voting and views happening, I can't see any other real option. Sure compromise and push and pull happens all the time, but damn.

As for OP, Texas has been one of the largest contributors to the economic growth of the US. Losing that state would have tons of economic and global consequences for the US. Currently, as long as New York, California, Texas and Florida stay together, the US will be a power.

Yeah, I know Texas (and florida) would be a huge loss, but culturally and geographically it would be asinine not to include them with the southern half for the sake of discussion.

 

[MC Safety]

I'd want new countries, restricted travel, possibly armed borders. And then when the West disagrees with the North, we can set up another country. Because disagreements. And then we could squabble over the resources in Alaska and the farmlands of the Midwest.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

There are very few people in this country who legitimately want to secede, and it would create a large host of problems such as the following:
1. International travel. As the South and the North are now two different countries, border crossing would be an issue.

2. What "South" means. How does one define the South? Does it extend into California? As far up as Missouri? Will states split apart?

3. Mass migration: Depending on the economic situation of the time, and regardless of it, there will be a mass migration of people from one country to the other, creating a large vacuum of jobs and an influx of people, potentially disrupting the two economies.

4. Military: How will the military holdings be divided up? Will the South receive none of the equipment? Only the equipment located in the South? What of equipment overseas?

5. Recognition: The South failed to receive recognition 155 years ago, and it is doubtful they would receive in the present day.

6. Territorial holdings: Which country receives which territorial holdings? Does the South receive Puerto Rico? It is geographically south after all. Not to mention Guam, the Virgin Islands, and even Bajo Nuevo, a small uninhabited reef and islets.

If I had more time to continue my points I would, but in summary, succession of states (Not territories) will never happen in the near future.

Great post. I hadn't considered territories honestly. I'm not sure what the most fair way to divide them would be, but my logic in allowing the south to secede was largely driven by southern states' common political ideology. In keeping with that line of thinking, any conservative leaning territories would go to the south while liberal leaning territories would go to the north. Although since territories are less involved politically, that may not be the best way to divide them.


As for military and equipment, the simplest solution I can think of at 3 in the morning would be to divvy it up proportionally to population. That's lacking a lot of necessary nuance, but that would be my starting point for negotiating.


As for international travel, I imagine it being set up similarly to how it is with most western European countries.

And as I framed it, "South" more or less means "the deep south" as defined in this (really interesting) article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/11/08/which-of-the-11-american-nations-do-you-live-in/

 

[Forkball]

OP I suggest posting here if you haven't already.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I'd want new countries, restricted travel, possibly armed borders. And then when the West disagrees with the North, we can set up another country. Because disagreements. And then we could squabble over the resources in Alaska and the farmlands of the Midwest.

Isn't what you're saying a big part of the reason countries exist in the first place? What would be your argument for not having a single, global nation given your line of reasoning here?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

OP I suggest posting here if you haven't already.

I'll let this run its course first


Edit- sorry double post

 

[timetokill]

They already tried leaving and the north wouldn't let them.

so now you want to kick them out?

 

[KingFire]

Texas alone has a third of USA's oil and gas reserves.

 

[potam]

Texas alone has a third of USA's oil and gas reserves.

You mean the great, Jesus-sanctioned CSA's.

 

[danm999]

Something tells me there are obvious reasons this would be a bad idea that I'm overlooking, but I feel like both new countries would be able to govern a lot more efficiently if they weren't in a constant push-pull over which direction to lead.

The political gridlock in the United States isn't really a result of a North-South divide, and thus wouldn't be solved by cutting the country geographically in two.

 

[Prezhulio]

nm, saw the article

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Better to keep your enemies close.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

They already tried leaving and the north wouldn't let them.

so now you want to kick them out?

Not that I want to, but I thought it would be interesting to consider the pros and cons. Although apparently that makes me a hitler-esque idiot who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.


That said, I disagree with this idea that because the Civil War happened, the US is to be held in its current state for the rest of time. Just as the 2nd amendment maaaaaybe shouldn't be interpreted exactly the same way it was in the 18th century, maaaaybe at some point in time secession would actually make sense even though it didn't in the 1860's. Mind you, I don't think that time is now or in the near future. It may never be that time. I don't think that makes this discussion one not worth thinking about, though.

 

[WanderingWind]

I see that the OP is mostly contrite about not thinking this one through, but this is a prime example of how paying too much attention to political theater can influence your perception of reality. There are so few people in the South who would seriously advocate secession, and only slightly more who would drunkenly do so. Don't let the political fighting and relatively minor ideological differences between some states and the Federal government confuse you. Most Americans are for the fixing of America, not the dissolution of it.

Also, some of the states aren't as separate ideologically as you seem to think from much of the rest of the country.

 

[Lubricus]

You know how much it would cost us southerners to build a fence on the northern border?

 

[keuja]

But where would Alaska and Hawaii go?

 

[potam]

But where would Alaska and Hawaii go?

Alaska goes to the Russians and Hawaii goes back to the dolphins.

 

[squarerootofpie]

1. International travel. As the South and the North are now two different countries, border crossing would be an issue.

I don't know, I kind of imagine it to be like Europe. Travel isn't actually that big of a problem between these countries, they're just much easier to manage due to size?

Could be a completely wrong pre-conception but I've always felt that smaller countries mean it's overall easier to run things smoothly.

 

[WoodWERD]

The Divided States doesn't have the same ring to it.

 

[potam]

I don't know, I kind of imagine it to be like Europe. Travel isn't actually that big of a problem between these countries, they're just much easier to manage due to size?

Could be a completely wrong pre-conception but I've always felt that smaller countries mean it's overall easier to run things smoothly.

The South would still be a ginormous fucking country compared to European ones.

edit: size of those states = 682,700 square miles

size of EU = 1.694 million square miles

 

[teruterubozu]

It's really an urban vs. rural divide, but even that is a generalized view. This is an overly simplistic discussion that goes nowhere.

 

[Chariot]

Dude, you're an idiot.


It's very Hitler-like what you're saying.

What. It may be be stupid, but I fail to see how that has anything to do with Hitler.

 

[MC Safety]

Isn't what you're saying a big part of the reason countries exist in the first place? What would be your argument for not having a single, global nation given your line of reasoning here?

Given that different countries were formed over time and in different geographical regions across the Earth, it makes sense there are many countries. What doesn't make sense is the United States of America fragmenting over ideological and religious lines. Because where does it end?

This argument appears frequently here, and it's always done in the same Socratic style where the original poster feigns curiosity and asks a lot of what if questions. If done well, the dislike of the South is veiled. But it's always present.

 

[McLovin]

Ide give up Texas, but they have to take Florida, no Florida... no deal. They can also take states that allow creationism to be taught in schools.

 

[teruterubozu]

Alaska goes to the Russians and Hawaii goes back to the dolphins.

Not back to the Hawaiians?

 

[Laieon]

Last I checked, every major city in Texas has a democratic mayor. It's not all bad!

Houston: Democrat (who's a lesbian). Houston is also the most diverse city in the US, which I guess shows that "The South" isn't nearly as close minded as a lot of people are led to believe.
Dallas: Democrat
San Antonio: Democrat
Austin: Democrat
El Paso: Independent maybe? I can't find any information on his political leanings...

 

[potam]

Not back to the Hawaiians?

dolphins are the real native Hawaiians.

Last I checked, every major city in Texas has a democratic mayor.

Rick Perry tho

 

[teruterubozu]

dolphins are the real native Hawaiians.

Ah I see. So why not Alaska to the bears?

 

[Chariot]

Ah I see. So why not Alaska to the bears?

It goes back to russia and russia goes back to the bears.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

I see that the OP is mostly contrite about not thinking this one through, but this is a prime example of how paying too much attention to political theater can influence your perception of reality. There are so few people in the South who would seriously advocate secession, and only slightly more who would drunkenly do so. Don't let the political fighting and relatively minor ideological differences between some states and the Federal government confuse you. Most Americans are for the fixing of America, not the dissolution of it.

Also, some of the states aren't as separate ideologically as you seem to think from much of the rest of the country.

Great post.

I'm a Texan and I would not want that shit.

 

[teruterubozu]

It goes back to russia and russia goes back to the bears.

Sounds anthropocentric.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Some people want to the same for europe.
Northern countries form EU North.
Souther countries form EU South.
Then we can go ahead and put EU North together with USA North and EU South together with USA South.

 

[AdventureMike]

With 24 hour news media and constant inundation of everything via social media, it's really easy to presume that there are way more extremists than there actually are. The very few people in the south that talk about secession are the fringe. Yeah, people like Ted Cruz and others like to, as you mentioned, use dog whistles like "real americans" but that's just to get votes. Keeping people in their echo chamber where they can believe that they're right and "fighting the good fight" keeps those congressmen and women their jobs.

Frankly, these individuals have existed forever. There's always been those people in the Southern US that believe "The south shall rise again!" and are dumb enough to think it might actually happen. People that refer to themselves as "Patriots" think American exceptionalism is a foregone conclusion. They used to spout this dumb shit at their neighborhood bars, churches and off their porch at their community. These people now have smartphones, computers and the internet to say the same shit but now more of the country can see it.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Given that different countries were formed over time and in different geographical regions across the Earth, it makes sense there are many countries. What doesn't make sense is the United States of America fragmenting over ideological and religious lines. Because where does it end?

This argument appears frequently here, and it's always done in the same Socratic style where the original poster feigns curiosity and asks a lot of what if questions. If done well, the dislike of the South is veiled. But it's always present.

I'm not feigning curiosity. And I'm not trying to hide my dislike of the south (social conservatism to be more accurate) either.


Anyway, you make a good point regarding when to stop dividing. I think there are benefits and detriments to being a citizen in the US, though. It requires a lot more compromise and sluggish progress and beurocracy to govern such a large country that I think a smaller country with more mutual ideological beliefs among parties would alleviate. As pointed out, though, there are obvious downsides in terms of maintaining status as a world power.

 

[masud]

I think the divide is much more rural/urban than it is north/south. Millions of liberals live in southern cities and the remote areas of the north are pretty conservative. It's just that south is less urban overall and our all or nothing political system kind of distorts things further.

 

[Angelus Errare]

Yea let's fuck over millions of people who don't want that all because a bunch of loud remedial people do want that.

That's totes at all not a bad idea...

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Sounds anthropocentric.

Wouldn't that be ursinocentric?

 

[Laieon]

Rick Perry tho

Good News! He's not Governor anymore.

Spoiler

That doesn't mean anything though, the politicians in Austin are just as nice as ever!.

 

[Big Baybee]

Like, half the people in these southern states are dems tho. Or at least 40-45%

 

[biggersmaller]

The political and logistical requirements make this beyond impossible. That said, a good reason to spark discussion is that the south requires federal dollars more than any other region. From businessinsider.com:

The states shaded blue pay in more than they get back in Federal tax dollars.

 

[WanderingWind]

I'm not feigning curiosity. And I'm not trying to hide my dislike of the south (social conservatism to be more accurate) either.

It just seems weird to dislike an area of the country that it just doesn't seem like you know much about. Gut feelings are just not a substitute for knowledge.

 

[potam]

Like, half the people in these southern states are dems tho. Or at least 40-45%

I think GA actually may become a battleground state within a decade. I can't remember if I actually heard that or am just making it up though

edit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zac-mccrary/sweet-georgia-blue_b_3385459.html

 

[Heroman]

Unlike the civil war south which was very different from the north ,todays south is basically the same as the north so seceding would be dumb.