Perhaps it's time to consider a new, 'upgraded' Confederacy

a reply to: nwtrucker

I think it's perfectly reasonable.

Instead of forcing people to live under snip they don't want to.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: nwtrucker

Not that I'm aware of, but there's long been an Alaskan Independence movement and party.

Then it might have been a Canadian spoof. I think this goes back to the 70s or 80s, not sure though.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
With the talk of revolution, of civil war, of seccession of States, Let's entertain another possibility.

A new version of the Confederate States of America.

One that, of course, is slavery free. At least, the chain version. The economic one seems harder to get a handle on..

What States could be invited? What conditions would be required to gain your support?

Perhaps a few northern States merit consideration? A little better control of cities within some of these States might be a requirement, as well.

An intriguing thought. Comments?

The urban/rural divide would be difficult to overcome. Living in Atlanta is like being on another planet compared to the rest of Georgia (except Savannah and Macon). I think people would be surprised which states would want to join a new confederate union and ones which would say "no thanks."

I could see Alabama joining a confederate union. Maybe Arkansas, Mississippi and South Carolina. I don't know enough about Texas to make a guess one way or another. Georgia would probably stay with the United States this time around, along with North Carolina and Virginia. California would also stay in the United States.

The new confederacy would be a cesspool with weak economies and all around boring citizenry. At least they wouldn't be tormented by the sight of progress since there would be none.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

At the risk of sounding glib...who gets Trump?

Mexico?

a reply to: icanteven


I'd agree re Georgia. Cities would need a little more 'alignment' with the rest of their State. I'd add Tennessee to the list. Likely Texas, assuming they didn't just go it alone.

Boring? Anything but. LOL. Many, many more industries in the southern States due to tax incentives.

Perhaps trump should build his wall along the mason dixon line and let the South go it alone. No federal aid...nothing!

But remember when Texas wanted to secede? Now they are begging for federal aid.

a reply to: olaru12

Only if trump moves south and I move north lol...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Tax incentives that would instantly vanish as the states that lose money go broke...

Tennessee... loses money..

Mississippi loses money..

Arkansas and Georgia too...

Texas is very profitable..but enough to pull the weight for everyone else??? Doubt it..

All the money comes from about 6 cities.. New York, LA , exc..

a reply to: olaru12

Actually it's worse than that...

The confederacy printed their own money, so I'm assuming they wouldn't want to continue using the dollar...as then the north owns your economy..
so any financial wealth not backed by material possessions evaporates.

a reply to: nwtrucker

The post above was meant as a reply to you.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: olaru12

Actually it's worse than that...

The confederacy printed their own money, so I'm assuming they wouldn't want to continue using the dollar...as then the north owns your economy..
so any financial wealth not backed by material possessions evaporates.

Understood. So if a few mid-west States join this new group, those very cities paper wealth degrades quickly. I do not see any huge northern advantage in material wealth, unlike the old days. As far as the 'cities' producing the wealth, It is merely paper wealth. Not manufacture or agriculture backed, as you say.

Foreign manipulation/intervention comes into play, as well. (I've held the swinish suspicion that there was outside help promised to the California group pushing seceding from the union.)

a reply to: growler

I'll totally take alaska not cuz of the brainwashed bs you said but because im sick of the brainwashed bs'rs

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

The post above was meant as a reply to you.

Now that I get a bit more 'real' here, the money discussion points out that it would never be permitted by the Feds, at the least.

It would crash the U.S. Dollar on the international markets and leave the entire country bankrupt. So 'Dollars' isn't even an issue.

Even unilateral secession would cause the same result. Perhaps Texas could get away with it, by itself, but that would be the max that would be tolerated.

With the U.S. Dollar collapsing, the rest would follow suit and the whole house of cards would likely collapse along with the U.S.. The whole world economy....

Sigh, I just don't see an 'out'....

a reply to: nwtrucker

You sound like a liberal,pick and choose states?,what kind of unity is that,why don't you just move to Canada look at the fun those fools are having,opening borders to all,now they are in a panic,oh well they are ruled by the queen,if thats what your looking for

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
a reply to: nwtrucker

You sound like a liberal,pick and choose states?,what kind of unity is that,why don't you just move to Canada look at the fun those fools are having,opening borders to all,now they are in a panic,oh well they are ruled by the queen,if thats what your looking for

Well old timer, 'choice' is what set up the Constitution, the nation, even the Confederacy. The alternative is ram it down the throats of those that don't want it.

If that's where your at. YOU move to Canada....

a reply to: nwtrucker

The north would be the United States... they wouldn't need to change money.

So they wouldn't only be left with the materials and resources. They would be keeping all their credit and debt.

Well the split could kill the credit rating , I guess . But still there is a whole world of people using the dollar that would profit the US..

Any states that left would be starting from scratch..

Any paper wealth they had would be controlled by the US and money isn't based on anything. So no real way to swap it for it's gold value.. except the slow way... and good luck once the whole "confederacy " is trying to do that at the same time.


I assume we are still hypothetically saying that whole states leave and combine, because there is no way for the rural and urban to split along those lines..

So that means the US still has about 4 times the land mass and just as much agriculture as the south.


Maybe not quite the soil a MS has..but I don't think that's a humungous factor.


As far as relations with other nations , they will likely be forced to pick sides, and the south would be the unproven commodity... so anyone choosing them would be taking a long shot. Hell, they will prob be screwed over in every deal as they apply a "we have to piss off the US to do buisness with you tax.."

a reply to: nwtrucker

The US dollar doesn't collapse if 10 states leave.. and that's me rounding up..

Texas is the only financial center that's leaving, and I bet only makes up 10% of GDP..

All the southern states together prob only equal 20%...


The entire world is based on the dollar.

There isn't anything a hand full of states (unless those states were LA, NY or D.C.)..

Hel the dollar might even go up , the US could simply invalidate any electronic money in the south.. and out law "traitors" exchanging it in..

which means there would be less dollars in circulation, which increases the value of the ones remaining.

Financially the south has never recovered from choosing to build their economy around slavery.. and have been playing catch up since..


And I don't mean in a morality sense..

If you look at the historical timeline. The abolition of slavery is followed by an explosion of innovation..


If your the one doing the manual labor. You real quick decide to find a better way to do things..

If your slaves are doing it. There is no such drive.. why would you care how harsh the work is???

And even worse it creates a system where innovation means you need less slaves to do things, so that's less work for those loaning out their slaves...


That's why the south didn't buy into manufacturing... not because they didn't have the intellect or resources.. all the richest people were in the south...

It's because that would have taken money out of the pockets of the BIG plantation owners who had all the lobbying power.

a reply to: JoshuaCox


You, sir, are an optimist!

Seeing this is nothing but fantasy, I can't say it couldn't happen as you describe. Assuming everyone was in agreement and believed everyone would live happily ever after, it might. This is planet earth. Remember? Not bloody likely.

The world's economy runs on three legs. The Eurozone, the U.S. dollar and, believe it or not, China and the Yuan.

Any leg that goes down bring the rest of that three legged chair down with it. Fear would bring the U.S. dollar down. Fear of the unknown future. Fear of other competing nations taking advantage of the unknown future of the U.S. in other areas of the world. Even fear of others fearing an unknown future. A trickle would turn into a flood of trading by both speculators and investors into a more predictable currency. Down it all goes....

The physical separation of the States is entirely different than the financial. I am convinced, physically, both could survive and even flourish....assuming good will amongst men, of course..cough, cough. If that 'good will' existed this thread wouldn't even be considered in the first place. The U.S. would be hale and hearty and doing well. Yes?

Now I'm arguing against my own thread...LMAO. Nope, it wouldn't be allowed to happen.

a reply to: Aldakoopa

The thing is though if current trends continue we might be able to see a 2nd American Civil War in our lifetime. Already you have some members here in ATS who felt the Coasts don't represent and have the best interests for the Heartland. And since the Coast don't seem to care about the Heartland, things won't get better in the long run. The problem will keep growing until it will become worse. At that point all it takes it a spark to light up the fuse.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck
a better question, do we share the national debt? or is this separatist movement just an attempt for some to renag on their share of it???