NationStates Jolt Archive

I have little intimate knowledge of the North/ South divide within the USA, yet I am aware that at a point in time there was much desire from the South to separate itself from the USA and form a Confederation instead, if I am correct. Is this desire still strong nowadays? What is the status quo? And if so, what arguments are there for and against such a secession?

I have little intimate knowledge of the North/ South divide within the USA, yet I am aware that at a point in time there was much desire from the South to separate itself from the USA and form a Confederation instead, if I am correct. Is this desire still strong nowadays? What is the status quo? And if so, what arguments are there for and against such a secession?

I'm assuming your not from the States. But to answer your question, I doubt that any southern countries would choose to suceed from the Union nowadays. However, I'm posotive that some red-neck back water towns would LOVE to suceed, but as a whole, no, we like having 50 stars on our flag.

I have little intimate knowledge of the North/ South divide within the USA, yet I am aware that at a point in time there was much desire from the South to separate itself from the USA and form a Confederation instead, if I am correct. Is this desire still strong nowadays? What is the status quo? And if so, what arguments are there for and against such a secession?The South already seperated and formed a seperate nation back in 1861 and it fell by 1865.

Being a Californian, I have no clue what they want over there in the south. All I know is that they like that Confederate flag a lot for various reasons. Culture, pride, history, etc.

There are no real arguments for the seccession as the main reason during the civil war was because the south wanted slavery and the north didn't (I am generalizing a lot to simplify it).

There isn't much desire to break away still, but there is still an obvious north-south divide in culture.

I'm assuming your not from the States. But to answer your question, I doubt that any southern countries would choose to suceed from the Union nowadays. However, I'm posotive that some red-neck back water towns would LOVE to suceed, but as a whole, no, we like having 50 stars on our flag.
I am South African, now a European, and I am studying in the UK. I am curious as to what opinions of Americans (or anyone with knowledge of the subject) are. I am also aware that generally the North is more liberal and progressive in its outlook, perhaps even somewhat richer due to corporate wealth. Beyond that, I am not sure what the divide is.

PS: The verb is to secede.

I am South African, now a European, and I am studying in the UK. I am curious as to what opinions of Americas (or anyone with knowledge of the subject) are. I am also aware that generally the North is more liberal and progressive in its outlook, perhaps even somewhat richer due to corporate wealth. Beyond that, I am not sure what the divide is.

In politics, the northeast (especially New England) is more liberal while the south and midwest is conservative. As for culture... each region has its own (northeast, northwest, central, midwest, southwest, pacific)

Look for a book called "The nine nations of North America" that should clarify some things.

Look for a book called "The nine nations of North America" that should clarify some things.
I'll look it up on Amazon.

I just visited Tennessee over Thanksgiving, and based on such critiria as support for the central government, economic policy, and pickup truck decor, they appear to be pro-union, at least in the area I viewed.

Seriously, though; with the exception of the occasional extremist racist mouth-breather, most Southerners I meet and work with don't see the South as having a meaningful future apart from rest of the U.S.

One might argue that the cultural and economic crevice between the North and South has eroded over the years into a complicated web of racial, political, and social fractures that are not solely geographic in distribution.

Now, Cailfornia... they could secede if only they had a leader vit der politikal vill to triumph over ze veaker masses uff ze filthy...wait, sorry.

Now, Cailfornia...they have they could secede if only they had a leader vit der politikal vill to triumph over ze veaker masses uff ze filthy...wait, sorry.
Nah, we're economically strong and we're quite capable of giving the United States a good rebellion, but we won't last.

Unless we sell out all our soldiers for cheap laborers/soldiers. THEN you'll see the Californian power!

(Actually, I don't think I'm kidding)

I just visited Tennessee over Thanksgiving, and based on such critiria as support for the central government, economic policy, and pickup truck decor, they appear to be pro-union, at least in the area I viewed.

Seriously, though; with the exception of the occasional extremist racist mouth-breather, most Southerners I meet and work with don't see the South as having a meaningful future apart from rest of the U.S.

One might argue that the cultural and economic crevice between the North and South has eroded over the years into a complicated web of racial, political, and social fractures that are not solely geographic in distribution.

Now, Cailfornia...they have they could secede if only they had a leader vit der politikal vill to triumph over ze veaker masses uff ze filthy...wait, sorry.
In terms of wealth, is the North or the South generally more affluent? Many say the Northeast is the centre of corporate wealth, yet from what I know there are still very rich landowners in the South.

The easiest way to put it is that there is a large accumulation of big cities in the northeast per given area than the rest of the nation.

In terms of wealth, is the North or the South generally more affluent? Many say the Northeast is the centre of corporate wealth, yet from what I know there are still very rich landowners in the South.

Well, I agree with those who see the greatest divide as being between urban and rural America. If a New Yorker goes to Dallas, L.A., Denver, or even Salt Lake City, he or she is likely to find many with common views.

If a farm worker from upstate goes to rural Georgia, Idaho, or maybe even California, they'll likely run into like-minded folks.

Since industrialized manufacturing fell out (or at least declined) in the U.S., the North is not so definitively superior in wealth. Some areas of the South benefited from an oil boom in the last century, and a few areas have developed reasonable tech sectors.

Truthfully, there are still echoes of the stereotype of the Northern industrialist and the Southern bumpkin, but I don't think either North or South can truly be rendered as separate entities anymore.

As I understand it, even some linguistic bifarcations are have faded substantially since the Civil War; I would imagine its due to television, cinema, and general mobility of the population. I could be wrong, though.

I am South African, now a European, and I am studying in the UK. I am curious as to what opinions of Americans (or anyone with knowledge of the subject) are. I am also aware that generally the North is more liberal and progressive in its outlook, perhaps even somewhat richer due to corporate wealth. Beyond that, I am not sure what the divide is.

PS: The verb is to secede.

Wrong, wrong wrong. As mush as I love you studying the US, I fear you've come to some bad assumptions.

The South sepearated from the North for two reasons. One, they reasoned that the Constitution (the highest law of America) did not state they could NOT and that such powers were thus reserved for the states to decide. Two, President Lincoln, an abolitionist, was elected as President. He stated he would not seek to remove slavery from the south, but many southerners did not believe him. The split caused much trouble, as many families were split by the ideas. Myself, I am a States Rightist. I think it IS up to the states to whether they can leave. But I am also a fierce abolitionist.

After the war and Lincoln's assassination, Radical republicans (those that wanted to punish the south for rebellion) came to power and the 'reconstruction' period was very harsh. Corruption was rife and many people were forced away from their homes. However, the Republicans did not try to better the lives of many of the blacks of the south. This led to essential slavery in the form of share croppers. Many whites were to become share craoppers over the years too. But eventually, the South reintegrated into the Union.

Till the 50's and the Civil Rights movement when alot of the rather oppressed black population of the South began agitating for equality and desegragation. This caused a backlash in white communities and the ideas of Southern seperation were brought up again, though never in any official or serious sense.

Also, the South is slowly becoming richer then the north, with many manufactuing plants and headquarters being relocated here (I live in Georgia). Also, people like the warmth of Florida and other southern states and are relocating themselves. Though the West has benefited too, I'd wager.

As it stands, the South has all to loose and nothing to gain from seperation. America is led by conservatives, as the south is, and they would gain nothing from such action. Though there is a marked pride in teh South about the rebellion, it is not overwhelming.

EDIT: wrong quote. I wanted to quote the first post. AND spelling errors. AND I added a bit about the West because it's true.

As I said, I have little knowledge of this aspect of US society, which is why I asked for illucidation. :) Thanks for the info.

Minalkra got it right, as I see it.

The San Francisco Bay Area [ the citys located in or around the San Francisco Bay, mid-CA ] have boomed and many big corps. have there HQs there including banks and Exxon-Mobil if I'm not mistaken.
Likewise Houston, I think, has a huge Telecommunications market
Alot of telecom corps. headquarter themselves there. Its fascinating if you have the time to research it alot.

*snip*

Two, President Lincoln, an abolitionist, was elected as President. He stated he would not seek to remove slavery from the south, but many southerners did not believe him.

*snippity*

The Republican Party did not advocate complete abolition of slavery. Do not oversimplify this, please. You must remember that the actual party line, followed and believed in my Lincoln, was that slavery must not be extended to the territories. He was quoted to have said that if he could have delivered the Union intact without the abolition of slavery, he'd have done it; with abolition, he'd have done it; or with partial abolition, he'd have done it. Abolition was not his primary motivator.

The South was pissed that Lincoln was elected President because it proved that they were powerless as a political bloc. Even if Breckinridge, Bell, and Douglas were all the same candidate, Lincoln would STILL have won the electoral college because he took every northern state, nevermind the fact that he would have been behind by 20% in the popular vote. It showed the South that it could not influence the direction politics was taking in the Union, so it left said Union.

I have little intimate knowledge of the North/ South divide within the USA, yet I am aware that at a point in time there was much desire from the South to separate itself from the USA and form a Confederation instead, if I am correct. Is this desire still strong nowadays? What is the status quo? And if so, what arguments are there for and against such a secession?
A resounding no. Southern society has changed so much in the past century. The reason why the two split lay ultimately in the difference between the industrial, urban, and heterogenous north, and the agrarian, homogenous south. The abolition of slavery was the first big economic change, ending the powerful southern aristocracy and making life more egalitarian. The factories started to move in arond forty or so years ago. Besides, many Southerners these days are originally from the North, and it's one of the nation's fastest growing regions.

The main contention of the south during the civil war was that individual states should have broad powers to overrule the federal government.

This is unacceptable because americans have constitutional rights which are the same wherever they live.

The people who still advocate what the south did call their movement "states' rights."

It is best to think of american states as 'administrative districts,' not political entities in themselves, distinct from the US as a whole.

Double Posted

I have little intimate knowledge of the North/ South divide within the USA, yet I am aware that at a point in time there was much desire from the South to separate itself from the USA and form a Confederation instead, if I am correct. Is this desire still strong nowadays? What is the status quo? And if so, what arguments are there for and against such a secession?
They won't leave. I think they like mucking up our elections...

It is best to think of american states as 'administrative districts,' not political entities in themselves, distinct from the US as a whole.

This is only a valid mode of thought after the civil war. Strong state powers versus a strong central authority was the default mode of thought for many people in the entirety of US political thought up to Reconstruction and even beyond.

The fears that the constitution created too strong a central government almost kept it from being ratified. The phrase "We the people" in the preamble (as opposed to "the states") caused a huge outcry from many corners. All rights contained in the Bill of Rights were considered as operational only against acts of the national government, not of state governments. Secession was considered (at different times) among northern states just as much as southern ones.

The creation of the first parties in the US, the Federalists and the Republicans, occured very much over this divide. The Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, etc) backed a stronger national government, but likely not one as big as we have today. The Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc) backed a limited role for the central government and more autonomous states. The Federalists disappered from view around the War of 1812, and Jeffersonian Republicanism was the victor of the day.

Even when a second party system emerged, there was tremendous support in the North for the Democrats (Andrew Jackson, Martin van Buren) who were advocates of stronger state governments. Their opponents, the Whigs (who died out before the civil war), derived their support more from pro-business leanings than from a desire for a strong central government in any other area of life.

The Democrats collapsed over the issue of the spread of slavery into the territories gained from the Louisianna Purchase (Kansas was the specific sparking point) and led to the return of more regional candidates (as in the 1860 election). Even after the election and the secession of the South, there was an element in the North (Copperheads) that supported the South's right to go.

The moral or ideological objection to slavery was never very strong in the North, and most of the objection to the spread of slavery was based on Northern whites not wanting to have to compete with slave labor for work. Yes, there were some (Garrison, Phillips, the Quakers) who took a more principled stance against slavery, but they were in the minority. But to claim that the civil war was fought to protect constitutional rights of the individual is very anachronistic. In fact, Lincoln regularly overstepped the recognized constituional bounds around the national government throughout his tenure as president. He was more a threat to these constitutional rights than the secession of the South.

I'm not an apologist for the antebellum South, just putting forth some food dor thought. For those who think that the South had no right to secede, let me put forth the following. What occured during the American Revolution? What happened during the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution? These were very much rejections of a legitimate governmental force for another form. So, how are they different from the organization of the Confederate States of America?

The fact that we are still one USA today has less to do with the right of the South to secede and more, much more, to do with the practical realities of their ability to win their fight for independence.

They won't leave. I think they like mucking up our elections...

Too true...

Let's give florida back to spain so we won't have to worry about another 2000 election debacle anymore!

Die florida die!:mp5:

FOR DIXIE!

The main contention of the south during the civil war was that individual states should have broad powers to overrule the federal government.

That's not entirely accurate. You're thinking of nullification, which didn't have much support outside of South Carolina, especially after John C. Calhoun died.

The first block of states to leave the Union, the Deep South, left for a number of reasons. One, their fear of being unable to do anything with the Federal government was already explained well enough by The Philosophes. However, there were other reasons.

One of the reasons that the people in charge in the South wanted to leave the Union was the Morrill Tariff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff) which drastically raised the duties on imported industrial goods. The South was very much an import/export economy. They would generally ship goods, especially cotton, overseas and brings their ships back full of European manufactured goods. However, the Morrill Tariff made it more expensive to buy the normally cheaper, better European goods compared to the Northern made industrial goods. So ships from the South would have to exchange their cotton for cash, and head back home with empty loads. You could imagine how those Southerners who were involved in this business would have been angry about this.

And probably the biggest reason the people in the Deep South wanted to leave was slavery, but not entirely in the way you think. Be aware that very few Southerns actually owned slaves. But slavery was a part of their culture. Yes, slavery is wrong, but this was an entirely different time. Southerners were afraid that the North would incite slave revolts in their states, and many of them remembered what happened in Haiti. John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry cemented this notion in the Southern mind. Also, Americans off all types are fiercely independent people. We don't like other people telling us how to live. Many Southerners were afraid that the North would force societal changes on them, despite Lincoln's assertions to the contrary. There was a lot of fear and hysteria, and if cooler heads had prevailed the South would never have tried to leave.

The reason the Upper South, Virginia, Arkansas, etc. left was because they didn't believe the Federal government had any right to stop the Deep South from leaving. Virginia had already voted to stay in the Union, but when Lincoln called for volunteers they left.

Anyway, the South believed they could secede for a number of reasons. First off is the seperation of powers in the Constitution. Article 1, Sec 9 lists the powers Congress has, and Article 1, Sec 10 lists the things that States can't do. The 10th Amendment, to paraphrase broadly, says if it isn't in either of those lists the States can do it. Also, secession can be justified through the Lockean concept of sovereignty and transfer of power. According to this mode of thinking the United States government lost legitimacy in those Southern states, and the people of which came together in a convention and exercised their sovereign power to change their form of government.

And just to clarify, the term "states rights" is not just a "code word" for limiting civil rights. There are people who believe in both states rights and civil rights. Nor are all states rights advocates extreme conservatives. The idea of states rights is about freedom of choice. It allows Texans to live as they want, Californians to live as they want, etc. As long as certain civil rights guidelines are followed, what is wrong with that? Americans agree on a relatively small set of basic human rights, but not everyone in every state agrees on the rest. Why try and force the same programs and values on every state, when that may not be what they want? I'm an advocate of states rights, and I would like to see my state decriminalize drugs and institute a universal healthcare system. Does that make me a racist nutjob? A more decentralized system allows for everyone to be happy. If we allowed more conservative states to follow their conservative social policies at home, and vice verse, who gets hurt? If you're a liberal in Texas, vote with your feet. Conservative in Mass? Leave.

Phew! I think I just developed carpal tunnel.

edited for bad linkage

We Southernors take pride in our history, and some of us put the Confederate battle flag on our cars, some even hang it up on their houses. None of us (or so few that it doesn't matter) wish to leave the Union.

Also, the main difference that I think of between the North and the South is accent. There are also some other cultural differences, as the North East is liberal, and we Southernors are more conservative.

The cause of the South leaving the Union during the Civil War is very much debated. Some say slavery, others say state's rights, others come up with entirely different things.

Today's South is different from the past's South. Maryland used to be considered Southern. Now it is Yankee as hell. Northern Virginia and parts of West Virginia are also mostly Northern, at least from my experience. MO also used to be considered Southern, I think. Now I don't think I'd call it that. It's too bad, really. I prefer a Southern accent over a Northern one.

Wrong, wrong wrong. As mush as I love you studying the US, I fear you've come to some bad assumptions.

The South sepearated from the North for two reasons. One, they reasoned that the Constitution (the highest law of America) did not state they could NOT and that such powers were thus reserved for the states to decide. Two, President Lincoln, an abolitionist, was elected as President. He stated he would not seek to remove slavery from the south, but many southerners did not believe him. The split caused much trouble, as many families were split by the ideas. Myself, I am a States Rightist. I think it IS up to the states to whether they can leave. But I am also a fierce abolitionist.

After the war and Lincoln's assassination, Radical republicans (those that wanted to punish the south for rebellion) came to power and the 'reconstruction' period was very harsh. Corruption was rife and many people were forced away from their homes. However, the Republicans did not try to better the lives of many of the blacks of the south. This led to essential slavery in the form of share croppers. Many whites were to become share craoppers over the years too. But eventually, the South reintegrated into the Union.

That shows you have been taken by the romantic notion of the fallen South (i.e. Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation), "its all the fault of those damn carpetbaggers, we just want to be left alone." Such a view is totally false and completely inaccurate.

After the restoration of southern state governments the southern populace elected many Old Confederates back into office. Those governments immediately moved to prevent the newly freed Black community from gaining any influence or say. Restrictive anti-Black laws were passed, restricting African Americans from such activities as traveling at night and traveling without a pass (in other words a form of Neo-Slavery, slavery in all but name)... Blacks were prevented by force and violence from participating in elections. Black schools and businesses were attacked by armed ruffians and hate groups, all with the support or consent of local law enforcement (one of those hate groups being the KKK, which was involved in over 1,300).

Needless to say, many in the Republican dominated North were disgusted and in the 1866 congressional elections gave the Radical Republicans the required majority to enact their agenda over the veto of President Johnson. They passed the Reconstruction Act, which placed the South under military rule, required Southern States to allow equal voting rights for African Americans, equal rights for all citizens, barred former Confederates from voting, and required the States to ratify the 14h amendment. For details on the act here’s a link...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Act

In 1871 the KKK was declared an illegal terrorist organization in the Civil Rights Act of 1871, and the Klan’s insurrection stomped out by Federal Troops (the organization was almost completely destroyed and would not recover until the rebirth of the Second Klan in the early 20th century). For a link to the Civil Rights Act of 1871...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1871

During Reconstruction the lives of former slaves improved dramatically, they could own property, they're civil and voting rights were protected by Federal Troops, and literacy increased (Northerners opening schools for Blacks with Federal protection). Reconstruction was about more then punishing the South for rebellion; it was about recreating the South.

After reconstruction was abandoned in the late 1870's (because of political self-interest and a perceived Northern exhaustion) the Old Confederates and their supporters once again got back into office and proceeded to reimplement the laws restricting African Americans, which transformed Southern governments into White Supremacist one-party States. African Americans lost the rights they gained during Reconstruction and would live the next 8 decades in a state of fear (fear of upsetting the white power structure). Southern Segregation severely damaged the attempts to build a color blind labor movement (whenever workers went on strike a factory would ship in non-unionized Black scabs and pay them little, breaking the strike), which set back American living standards...

The worst thing that can be said about Reconstruction was that it ended!



Also, the South is slowly becoming richer then the north, with many manufactuing plants and headquarters being relocated here (I live in Georgia).

That is not what statistics taken by every government and non-profit entity tell us...

African Americans lost the rights they gained during Reconstruction and would live the next 80 decades in a state of fear (fear of upsetting the white power structure).

800 years? :p Interesting info though.

How powerful is the KKK nowadays? I know that racism is nowhere near as rampant as it was in the past, but isn't it still somewhat alive?

800 years? :p Interesting info though.

How powerful is the KKK nowadays? I know that racism is nowhere near as rampant as it was in the past, but isn't it still somewhat alive?

The KKK is still active and alive but do not have the power to influence elections and laws that they once had. Racism is alive and well today it is just much more clever and hidden.

the sick racists (and there are still lots of them) would love to separate... and i wouldn't minding seeing trash like them leave.

The KKK is still active and alive but do not have the power to influence elections and laws that they once had. Racism is alive and well today it is just much more clever and hidden.
Its sometimes scary how potent racism is globally. I mean they say South Africa was bad, but when one looks at the actions of the KKK, one wonders.

Too true...

Let's give florida back to spain so we won't have to worry about another 2000 election debacle anymore!

Die florida die!:mp5:

Lets give California back to the Mexicans since they basically "de facto" annexing it anyway.

Its sometimes scary how potent racism is globally. I mean they say South Africa was bad, but when one looks at the actions of the KKK, one wonders.

The KKK have lost almost all of their power by now. They are simply a bunch of old and grown geezers with arthritis talking about the good old days when they use to "lynch dem nagers", all while wearing robes that cover their entire body, in the Southern sun.

The KKK have lost almost all of their power by now. They are simply a bunch of old and grown geezers with arthritis talking about the good old days when they use to "lynch dem nagers", all while wearing robes that cover their entire body, in the Southern sun.
There are still young people out there who agree with them though, even if not with the full extremity of their ideologies. And then you also have the Neo-nazis. Neither is that popular, yet they do still have their "sheep."

That shows you have been taken by the romantic notion of the fallen South (i.e. Gone with the Wind and Birth of a Nation), "its all the fault of those damn carpetbaggers, we just want to be left alone." Such a view is totally false and completely inaccurate.

As opposed to the virtuous North notion? There is truth and falsehood in both interpretations. Reconstruction was much more about punishing the "traitorous" South than any real sentiment of racial equality in the North (else it wouldn't have taken another hundred years for blacks to start getting any meaningful level of civil rights).

After the restoration of southern state governments the southern populace elected many Old Confederates back into office. Those governments immediately moved to prevent the newly freed Black community from gaining any influence or say. Restrictive anti-Black laws were passed, restricting African Americans from such activities as traveling at night and traveling without a pass (in other words a form of Neo-Slavery, slavery in all but name)...

And you would honestly expect that a culture that had developed over a couple of centuries would immediately change? Southern fears had long revolved around two ideas: that the North would be able to dominate the political landscape (because of their approx. 3:1 population advantage) and, especially in the Deep South, what would happen if the blacks (who greatly outnumbered whites in many areas) were able to unite. I'm not trying to defend the actions of the South, but you are projecting modern moral sentiments backward, something that we should try to avoid in studying the past.

They passed the Reconstruction Act, which placed the South under military rule, required Southern States to allow equal voting rights for African Americans, equal rights for all citizens, barred former Confederates from voting, and required the State to ratify the 14h amendment. For details on the act here’s a link...

Quite a harsh set of dictates to a group that the North had claimed was never out of the union, no? At least we should be able to agree that it would be seen as such by the Southerners.

During Reconstruction the lives of former slaves improved dramatically, they could own property, they're civil and voting rights were protected by Federal Troops, and literacy increased (Northerners opening schools for Blacks with Federal protection). Reconstruction was about more then punishing the South for rebellion; it was about recreating the South.

On paper, perhaps. The Civil War had destroyed two of the three forms of wealth in the South: liquid capital when they refused to recognize confederate currency or debts and private property when they freed the slaves. That left only land and real property (at least that which wasn't destroyed in the war) as a form of wealth.

This solidified the position of many of the former slaveholders, as they were the large land-owners. The combination of this destruction of wealth and stratification by land-ownership is what created the tenant-farming and crop-lien systems that reduced freed blacks (and poor whites) to the level of peonage.

proceeded to reimplement the Jim Crow laws,

Jim Crow legislation was the original creation of the 1890s, by the generation that came to power after Reconstruction as a reaction to the ills (real or percieved) of that system.

Southern Segregation severely damaged the attempts to build a color blind labor movement (whenever workers went on strike a factory would ship in non-unionized Black scabs and pay them little, breaking the strike), which set back American living standards...

Wow, now that is some revisionist thinking. Industrialization was almost exclusively the provenance of the North, and it was Northern segregation and racism that created these effects. The only black and white story in this period of history is that of skin color, not of North vs. South morality.

The worst thing that can be said about Reconstruction was that it ended!

Far from it. Reconstruction did little to address the real problems created by secession and the civil war. It did absolutely nothing to address the racism in the country as a whole. There are very few real, positive effects at all that came out of these policies.

There are still young people out there who agree with them though, even if not with the full extremity of their ideologies. And then you also have the Neo-nazis. Neither is that popular, yet they do still have their "sheep."

But to think that there wont be people like that or people that follow people like that, is unrealistic. What is realistic, and the best you can hope for, is that there is such a minimal ammount of these types of people, that it doesnt even matter.....I'm hoping this theory will one day apply to liberals too:D

But to think that there wont be people like that or people that follow people like that, is unrealistic. What is realistic, and the best you can hope for, is that there is such a minimal ammount of these types of people, that it doesnt even matter.....I'm hoping this theory will one day apply to liberals too:D
Heh, I wouldn't put too much hope into either if I were you :p

Heh, I wouldn't put too much hope into either if I were you :p

*Sighs*

*Sighs*
You could always dream I guess :p

I think everyone misunderstands the problem. The problem is, and it's comeing up this year too, that Northerners associate Christmas with snow. Southerners, who rarely saw more than a quarter-inch of snow per year, were offended and tried to break away from the Union.

The KKK has been destroyed twice as an organization. The first was in 1871 when Federal troops launched a campaign against them (trying those they captured in Federal Court), which resulted in the destruction of the organization.

The Klan was refounded in 1915 and briefly attained national prominence (having tremendous influence over several Midwestern and Southern State Governments, how much they exploited that influence is a matter of debate), when a series of scandals proceeded to destroy its image and institutional workings. The Second Klan went bankrupt and was disbanded in 1944 (after being found to have evaded federal taxes).

Since then there have been six to ten organizations claiming to be Klan, all supremacist fringe groups, but none of them being a truly national organization like the second Klan... But all capable of great violence and promoting hatred among the backcountry ignorant.

Everyone has answered as to why the states left, but just to answer a small part of the orginal question:

One of the reasons that the South has been intergrated in and no longer wishes to leave is that regional diffrences (even the dread blue state/red state) no longer exsist to the point that they did pre and post Civil War. During WWII, the country ended up looking more like scrambled eggs. Instead of the regional armies that the US had used before, EVERYONE (male I mean) was drafted and served with men from around the region. Also, during that time, traning camps tended to be located farther away from home. California became the place many service men trained in, had R&R in, and recovered from wounds. After the war, the returning men often times would leave their homes to go across country (California for example) to resettle, again, mixing up the regions.

Improving and quicker transportation as well as nationwide tv just complated the mixing making a nation an actual nation instead of local areas.

We're too mixed up now for any state to consider itself fully seperate. ;)

I disagree with that, to a point. When I was in the Army I was rather surprised to see how different people were elsewhere in the country. I remember being quite disturbed by a friend of mine who showed me a picture of himself in full cowboy regalia. And it wasn't an urban/rural thing because this guy was from Galveston, Texas and I grew up on a little farm in central Michigan.

Each state does have its own culture and identity, in addition to the larger American identity. There are things that are identifiably Texan, Californian, etc. But these things are usually found in smaller cities. I've always found that in the various metropoli (is that the correct term?) I've visited I don't see much other than the rather bland homogenous commercialized American culture. Sure there is usually some smaller, low key music, theatre, etc. But before it goes national they sex it up, put some flashy lights on it, add a few explosions, and generally crap it up.

Anyway, that's what I see the general "American" culture as. A crapped up, Hollywoodified, dumbed down portion of the local cultures throughout the US. We're too big and diverse to view as one inseperable people, really.

No, the South really isn't seccessionist as stated. There are some separatists in Texas, though a minority I believe, who believe the annexation was unlawful. Also, the North has toyed with the idea of secession in the past - Hartford Convention, anyone?

I disagree with that, to a point. *SNIP* We're too big and diverse to view as one inseperable people, really.
There are state and regional differences yes, but not at the point they once were. Meaning that most Americans ID themselves as Americans first, THEN their state. Pre-WWII, it was the opposet way around. There is a lot more mixing nox than there has ever been in our nation's history.

This doesn't make us inseperable, or not having regional differences/fights, but we have become far more cohesive as a nation as a whole.

I'll agree with that, although I think that technology is more to blame for that than anything else. Modern communications have made the entire world much smaller. But then, the mobility offered by the car made the US a much smaller place too.