What would happen if the United States Federal Government Collapsed?
I think it would interesting to sitting in London one day and suddenly here on the Telivision that the United States was no more, but fifty newly independent countries had sprung up. I mean state governments are capable of running their own former states, now countries and every state has thousands of army reserve troops. So each state/country would have an army. What do think?
Or each state/county would be immediatly overrun by the old american republlics allies and the United States would be reinstated as a country only with a Brit in the oval office of course.
Greater Trostia
17-01-2007, 18:44
California would join up to create another United States based on the West Coast Powers. Oregon, Washington, perhaps some neighboring inland ones if we're feeling generous.
Texas would rejoice not too long before being conquered by Mexico.
I'm not sure about the Midwest. They could get something going with all that grain they produce, create like an OPEC.
The south would fall again.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 18:45
I'm trying to imagine the cataclysm that would precede such an event, and I'm having trouble doing it. But going with the thought game, I think it would be more likely that rather than collapsing into 50 states, you'd wind up with somewhere between 6 and 10 "superstates." It might not be that way at first, but it wouldn't take long for smaller states especially to band together.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 18:45
Yah. We'd all die laughing as about twenty nuclear mini nations were created. Some of them with major god bothering views.
Oh how we laughed.
The south would fall again.
ROFLMAO
Canada would most likely offer provincial status to some of the north-eastern and the western states, with the provision of reduced political representation until the population started to be more evenly distributed across the country.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 18:48
I'm trying to imagine the cataclysm that would precede such an event, and I'm having trouble doing it. But going with the thought game, I think it would be more likely that rather than collapsing into 50 states, you'd wind up with somewhere between 6 and 10 "superstates." It might not be that way at first, but it wouldn't take long for smaller states especially to band together.
Actually, I have to be fair. Every day I wish the tri-state area* would become an ubar rich micronation.
*that's the real nj/ny/ct tri state. not one of these johnny come lately 'tristates'/
California would join up to create another United States based on the West Coast Powers. Oregon, Washington, perhaps some neighboring inland ones if we're feeling generous.
Texas would rejoice not too long before being conquered by Mexico.
I'm not sure about the Midwest. They could get something going with all that grain they produce, create like an OPEC.
The south would fall again.
I think the south western part of the U.S would be torn a new asshole by mexico, parts of the north would be quickly taken by Canada and the British would atempt to reinstate its imperial rule on North America, this will not work of course they tried once and failed, what makes them think it will work this time. The Northern industrial states of the East coast will dominate the region to the mississippi river maybe a few states beyond. I agree with you on california, if it is not overrun by canada or mexico it has the potential to be come another United States on the West coast.
I'm trying to imagine the cataclysm that would precede such an event, and I'm having trouble doing it. But going with the thought game, I think it would be more likely that rather than collapsing into 50 states, you'd wind up with somewhere between 6 and 10 "superstates." It might not be that way at first, but it wouldn't take long for smaller states especially to band together.
Eventually maybe, or they would all fight each other for supremacy, it happened to the Holy Roman empire several times in history, though the Imperial Army always came out on top until Napolean dissovled the HRE and Prussia a while later created the German Empire.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 18:52
Actually, I have to be fair. Every day I wish the tri-state area* would become an ubar rich micronation.
*that's the real nj/ny/ct tri state. not one of these johnny come lately 'tristates'/
And I wish we could draw an east-west line just south of Orlando and split into the states of North and South Florida. We get so fucked by the state down here it's not even funny.
Bitchkitten
17-01-2007, 18:52
Texas would rejoice not too long before being conquered by Mexico.
Oh puleez! Texas would remain a sovereign state. Nobody else wants them.
I think the south western part of the U.S would be torn a new asshole by mexico, parts of the north would be quickly taken by Canada and the British would atempt to reinstate its imperial rule on North America, this will not work of course they tried once and failed, what makes them think it will work this time. The Northern industrial states of the East coast will dominate the region to the mississippi river maybe a few states beyond. I agree with you on california, if it is not overrun by canada or mexico it has the potential to be come another United States on the West coast.
I think that if even a single US state was taken back by Britain, one of the silo-holding countries would nuke the shit out of the UK. This isn't the 1800s. New countries are peers, rather than possible conquests. The UN, anyone?
Ashlyynn
17-01-2007, 18:53
California would join up to create another United States based on the West Coast Powers. Oregon, Washington, perhaps some neighboring inland ones if we're feeling generous.
Texas would rejoice not too long before being conquered by Mexico.
I'm not sure about the Midwest. They could get something going with all that grain they produce, create like an OPEC.
The south would fall again.
I find it hard to beleive Texas would be conquered by Mexico...I think even on it's own it would survive since it did win it's independence just fine from Mexico and was a Republic all on it's own before joining with the US. Besides with the military bases and troops in TX I think they could hold the Mexicans off no problem.
Expect a nation in the Great Lakes area if your going to see one on the west coast and with their industry and natural resources I think they would do pretty good.
Ashlyynn
17-01-2007, 18:55
And I wish we could draw an east-west line just south of Orlando and split into the states of North and South Florida. We get so fucked by the state down here it's not even funny.
Kind of like they keep trying to do here in MI....drawing a line north of the Tri city area because the southern part of the state screws the upper LP and the UP all the time on tax use.
New Burmesia
17-01-2007, 18:57
You'd probably end up with (should the federal government bot reform) a few smaller federations. Probably New England would be one, the west coast another. Possibly larger states with an international/sea border like Texas, California and possibly Florida could potentially stay independent. Smaller states may well be wary of joining in a federation where one state would have an overpowering population, and this effect would be more pronounced with many smaller federations.
I think that if even a single US state was taken back by Britain, one of the silo-holding countries would nuke the shit out of the UK. This isn't the 1800s. New countries are peers, rather than possible conquests. The UN, anyone?
If you would have read all of my post you would have seen that I predicted their horrifing failure at such a conquest, and yes they probably would be nuked, and if the United States fell, the U.N. would fall as well or be moved from New York City to some other country,maybe Canada.
Greater Trostia
17-01-2007, 19:00
I find it hard to beleive Texas would be conquered by Mexico...I think even on it's own it would survive since it did win it's independence just fine from Mexico and was a Republic all on it's own before joining with the US. Besides with the military bases and troops in TX I think they could hold the Mexicans off no problem.
I guess I think in terms of long term. Texas could win the battles, but Mexico would win the war. Unless of course Texas appealed to the Californian Empire for help. :p
I could be wrong.
Oh puleez! Texas would remain a sovereign state. Nobody else wants them.
That's actually a more compelling argument.
I agree with you on california, if it is not overrun by canada or mexico it has the potential to be come another United States on the West coast.
Well, California is the largest and most economically powerful of the US states.
Mexico's GDP is 693 billion, California's 1.5 trillion. The latter is the tenth largest economy in the world (according to CIA world factbook).
I don't think it'd even come to war - I think there'd be an alliance and eventually Mexico would get incorporated.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 19:00
Kind of like they keep trying to do here in MI....drawing a line north of the Tri city area because the southern part of the state screws the upper LP and the UP all the time on tax use.
It's really bad down here because we've got nearly have the population but just over a third of the representatives in the legislature, and there's a significant difference in political philosophies in the two regions. And one of the huge grievances has to do with, believe it or not, building codes. All of Florida is in a hurricane zone, but north Florida counties have laxer building restrictions that south Florida does, so when hurricanes come through, our buildings tend to sustain less damage--but we all get fucked in the property insurance. I could go on and on, but I won't as I imagine everyone's eyes would glaze over quickly.
You'd probably end up with (should the federal government bot reform) a few smaller federations. Probably New England would be one, the west coast another. Possibly larger states with an international/sea border like Texas, California and possibly Florida could potentially stay independent. Smaller states may well be wary of joining in a federation where one state would have an overpowering population, and this effect would be more pronounced with many smaller federations.
I think the more industrialized east coast, not to mention more heavely populated, will unite into some sort of republic or empire or something and set out conquering the rest of former america, then they will turn on our weaker neighbors of canada and mexico and form a brand new empire on the North American continent. This is just another one of my many ideas of what could happen.
Arthais101
17-01-2007, 19:05
I would have to know the circumstances as to how it came about before I could even begin to guess. If it were some nuclear cataclysm, I'm willing to bet whatever took out the federal government of the United States of America has resuled in significant havoc being strewn across the world.
I think the more industrialized east coast, not to mention more heavely populated, will unite into some sort of republic or empire or something and set out conquering the rest of former america, then they will turn on our weaker neighbors of canada and mexico and form a brand new empire on the North American continent. This is just another one of my many ideas of what could happen.
You wanna know what would happen if Americans invaded Canada? How fast do you think such a country would fall with approximately five million guerillas invading their borders? This ain't Iraq, son. We actually are able to produce biological and chemical agents if we so choose.
The people's republic of Southern Illinois would rejoice!!!! Mwahaha. I would take control and give permission to raid Chicago(who is going to fight back in Chi-town? they have no guns!!!!) and we will be victorious! Teach them a lesson for fucking us over the last 150 years.
Call to power
17-01-2007, 19:12
I say business as usual the richer states will form various E.U type alliances whilst bible states go all economically eastern Europe this is of course before Canada takes hold of the world with its Iron claw!!!
SNIP
Your damn right we Brits will be back *shakes teacup using only pinkie without spilling a drop* (of course the notion of Britain wanting America is ludicrous and I only hope your joking)
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 19:13
And I wish we could draw an east-west line just south of Orlando and split into the states of North and South Florida. We get so fucked by the state down here it's not even funny.
Actually, I was assuming that chaps such as yourself - even though we don't always see eye to eye in the pol-tactics - would be petitioning for entry to the new and improved tri-state. (Or the equivalent in California, but california is yucky).
Kecibukia
17-01-2007, 19:31
The people's republic of Southern Illinois would rejoice!!!! Mwahaha. I would take control and give permission to raid Chicago(who is going to fight back in Chi-town? they have no guns!!!!) and we will be victorious! Teach them a lesson for fucking us over the last 150 years.
Of course the Daleycrats could just raise up all the dead (like they do on election day) to fight for them.
We would still have to duke it out w/ the gangbangers, the ones who actually have the guns.
Of course the Daleycrats could just raise up all the dead (like they do on election day) to fight for them.
Who you gonna call?
http://xenafan.com/movies/ghostbusters/crossed.jpg
We would still have to duke it out w/ the gangbangers, the ones who actually have the guns.
Yeah, that could be a problem.
Ice Hockey Players
17-01-2007, 19:54
California would form a coalition of states with Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii, and it would immediately become a vast economic power. Texas would do the same, only with New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and maybe Colorado. Georgia would lead the Carolinas, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. Appalachia would be West Virginia, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and not much else, and would be laughed at. The rest of the region, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, would try to cozy up to the Dakotas and become a nuclear threat. North Dakota may decide it's better off on its own and turn into a bizarre North Korea. The East Coast states from Maryland up to Maine would be one nation, though the western portions of PA and NY would be excluded.
I got eight nations out of it myself.
Utah - the only state to go independent. May change its name to Deseret or Mormon Homeland or something. Likely very conservative and isolated, and people would stay in it from birth to death. Salt Lake City would effectively be the only port for international travel.
Free Republic of the Pacific - led by California, the group would include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and any interests the U.S. has in the Pacific. The economy would be booming, and social policies would be relatively progressive. A rivalry between Los Angeles and New York City in terms of entertainment would be far more intense.
Confederate States of America - Georgia and Virginia would lead this group, most likely. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, the Carolinas, and Tennessee would be the membership of this strongly Christian nation. Conservative social policies, the Bible in schools, and adherence to tradition would dominate a nation that must rely in some form on tourism.
Appalachia - pulled together by Ohio, the nation is Ohio's attempt at trying to create a unified region. It fails, and only Indiana, Kentucly, West Virginia, and the western parts of Pennsylvania and New York join. The nation is largely poor and desires great things despite being largely ignored.
Great Lakes Republic - Ohio's idea put together without Ohio's inclusion or leadership. Instead, Illinois is the main focus of this nation, as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin join a nation centered around manufacturing. Attempts to get the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are met with a refusal, but the states share a lot of commonalities with the states and later consider joining the Republic.
Free Southern States - this is the Texas-led coalition, and it's likely to include Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as well. This land will be in conflict between the notion of self-sufficient freedom and the notion of Biblical law. Ultimately, this nation will value economic strength more, and social change will slowly follow.
Republic of New England - not encompassing just New England, this one goes all the way from Maine to Maryland, with Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the eastern parts of New York and Pennsylvania. This is likely to be the most socially progressive of the nations and the most city-filled; some will complain of high taxes, though.
The Rest - Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. I can't predict what they will do; a nation of their own is possible, but they may just stay independent and do their own thing. A relationship with the Great Lakes states is likely, though it won't proceed past friendship; no states are likely to decide to merge with the Great Lakes. The Dakotas, maybe.
So that's eight nations. One short of the Nine Nations of North America, but it works.
Wallonochia
17-01-2007, 20:07
Great Lakes Republic - Ohio's idea put together without Ohio's inclusion or leadership. Instead, Illinois is the main focus of this nation, as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin join a nation centered around manufacturing. Attempts to get the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are met with a refusal, but the states share a lot of commonalities with the states and late consider joining the Republic.
The problem with this is that none of those other states would want to be dominated by Chicago in that way. Any such confederation would have to be a very loose one, although some sort of arrangement would absolutely have to be made in order to manage the Lakes. Perhaps something along the lines of the current Great Lakes Commission.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 20:11
Republic of New England - not encompassing just New England, this one goes all the way from Maine to Maryland, with Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the eastern parts of New York and Pennsylvania. This is likely to be the most socially progressive of the nations and the most city-filled; some will complain of high taxes, though.
Hold the fucking phones jones. There is a lot of shit in there that I don't want in my new nation. (I'll take some of the beachy bits and delaware though).
In any case, make it nine.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 20:13
Actually, I was assuming that chaps such as yourself - even though we don't always see eye to eye in the pol-tactics - would be petitioning for entry to the new and improved tri-state. (Or the equivalent in California, but california is yucky).
Nah--there's no one down here for us to team up with. South Florida is this island of Carribbean sanity south of the deep red south. North Florida would team up with Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas and feel right at home.
Ice Hockey Players
17-01-2007, 20:13
In any case, make it nine.
I thought about splitting it down the middle - anything from NY south is in one nation, and anything farther north than that is in New England - but then I thought, "Nah." That and I could have tossed the Dakotas in with the Great Lakes and Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming in with the Pacific, but I thought better of that.
King Bodacious
17-01-2007, 20:16
Is there not one who would try to reunite? :confused:
Chietuste
17-01-2007, 20:19
I think a lot of you are forgetting the anti-federalist, pro-tradition, pro-Christianity pockets popping up in rural Appalachia. I could see the states losing control of these areas and a loose confederation of semi-anarchist states running along the Appalachian Mountains from Central Pennsylvania to North Carolina and west into the Laurel Highlands in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia.
The problem with this is that none of those other states would want to be dominated by Chicago in that way. Any such confederation would have to be a very loose one, although some sort of arrangement would absolutely have to be made in order to manage the Lakes. Perhaps something along the lines of the current Great Lakes Commission.
Chicago would be resting nicely at the bottom of Lake Michigan:cool:
New Burmesia
17-01-2007, 20:20
Is there not one who would try to reunite? :confused:
Some probably would, but if the federal government were to collapse it would 'open Pandora's box,' so to speak. Such a situation would allow new ideas about what union should mean to flourish.
I could actually see some places turn to City-States.
Ashlyynn
17-01-2007, 20:25
California would form a coalition of states with Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii, and it would immediately become a vast economic power. Texas would do the same, only with New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, and maybe Colorado. Georgia would lead the Carolinas, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. Appalachia would be West Virginia, Ohio, western Pennsylvania, upstate New York, and not much else, and would be laughed at. The rest of the region, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Iowa, would try to cozy up to the Dakotas and become a nuclear threat. North Dakota may decide it's better off on its own and turn into a bizarre North Korea. The East Coast states from Maryland up to Maine would be one nation, though the western portions of PA and NY would be excluded.
I got eight nations out of it myself.
Utah - the only state to go independent. May change its name to Deseret or Mormon Homeland or something. Likely very conservative and isolated, and people would stay in it from birth to death. Salt Lake City would effectively be the only port for international travel.
Free Republic of the Pacific - led by California, the group would include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and any interests the U.S. has in the Pacific. The economy would be booming, and social policies would be relatively progressive. A rivalry between Los Angeles and New York City in terms of entertainment would be far more intense.
Confederate States of America - Georgia and Virginia would lead this group, most likely. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, the Carolinas, and Tennessee would be the membership of this strongly Christian nation. Conservative social policies, the Bible in schools, and adherence to tradition would dominate a nation that must rely in some form on tourism.
Appalachia - pulled together by Ohio, the nation is Ohio's attempt at trying to create a unified region. It fails, and only Indiana, Kentucly, West Virginia, and the western parts of Pennsylvania and New York join. The nation is largely poor and desires great things despite being largely ignored.
Great Lakes Republic - Ohio's idea put together without Ohio's inclusion or leadership. Instead, Illinois is the main focus of this nation, as Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin join a nation centered around manufacturing. Attempts to get the Dakotas, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming are met with a refusal, but the states share a lot of commonalities with the states and later consider joining the Republic.
Free Southern States - this is the Texas-led coalition, and it's likely to include Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, and Oklahoma as well. This land will be in conflict between the notion of self-sufficient freedom and the notion of Biblical law. Ultimately, this nation will value economic strength more, and social change will slowly follow.
Republic of New England - not encompassing just New England, this one goes all the way from Maine to Maryland, with Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the eastern parts of New York and Pennsylvania. This is likely to be the most socially progressive of the nations and the most city-filled; some will complain of high taxes, though.
The Rest - Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming. I can't predict what they will do; a nation of their own is possible, but they may just stay independent and do their own thing. A relationship with the Great Lakes states is likely, though it won't proceed past friendship; no states are likely to decide to merge with the Great Lakes. The Dakotas, maybe.
So that's eight nations. One short of the Nine Nations of North America, but it works.
We in Michigan do not need the nukes of the Dakotas....We have E.L.F. which controlls the orders and such for Nuke subs and such....so we have our deterrent....those states controlling the nuke subs will be friendly to us. Plus we have the Abrams Tank Plant......and the largest Military base east of the Mississippi. We also have most of Ohios Armor in Storage here as well as a submarine of our own...albeit an older Diesel but it can be well used. Everyone always sells us short.....we also have the bodies to fill them Abrams we build.....so I think Detroit might head things not Chi town.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 20:28
Nah--there's no one down here for us to team up with. South Florida is this island of Carribbean sanity south of the deep red south. North Florida would team up with Georgia, Alabama and the Carolinas and feel right at home.
My bad. I wasn't talking about the geography. More just the people. I should have made that clear.
Intestinal fluids
17-01-2007, 20:41
If the US Federal Gov collapsed, Mexico and Canada wouldnt be invading anything. They would have thier own hands full dealing with a complete world economy collapse. Can you imagine the impact on world markets if the dollar vanished and the debt paper became worthless?
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 20:43
If the US Federal Gov collapsed, Mexico and Canada wouldnt be invading anything. They would have thier own hands full dealing with a complete world economy collapse. Can you imagine the impact on world markets if the dollar vanished and the debt paper became worthless?
yeah. I think that's already been factored in.
Gauthier
17-01-2007, 20:45
1) Canada would face a mass exodus of refugees.
2) The world market would really get fucked.
3) Margaret Atwood would be a lot closer to the truth than anyone expects.
4) Israel would collectively piss in their pants, then launch every nuclear missile they claimed not to have because they know it'll be over anyways.
Wallonochia
17-01-2007, 20:48
We in Michigan do not need the nukes of the Dakotas....We have E.L.F. which controlls the orders and such for Nuke subs and such....so we have our deterrent....those states controlling the nuke subs will be friendly to us. Plus we have the Abrams Tank Plant......and the largest Military base east of the Mississippi. We also have most of Ohios Armor in Storage here as well as a submarine of our own...albeit an older Diesel but it can be well used. Everyone always sells us short.....we also have the bodies to fill them Abrams we build.....so I think Detroit might head things not Chi town.
As for my opinion on all that, just look at my coffee cup.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/CIMG0654.jpg
Socialist Pyrates
17-01-2007, 20:51
If the US Federal Gov collapsed, Mexico and Canada wouldnt be invading anything. They would have thier own hands full dealing with a complete world economy collapse. Can you imagine the impact on world markets if the dollar vanished and the debt paper became worthless?
Why would Canada invade? what makes you think that we want you? Any state interested in joining us would have to apply and acceptance is not a sure thing. We've had a couple Caribbean island states offer to join our nation and they've been turned down. I can't speak for Mexico (I'm sure they're still pissed about having their lands stolen) but I don't think a Mexican invasion is likely either.
And why would the dollar vanish? I could see it being devalued as it likely will be anyways but there is no reason it shouldn't stay in use it's the practical thing to do.
If the US Federal Gov collapsed, Mexico and Canada wouldnt be invading anything. They would have thier own hands full dealing with a complete world economy collapse. Can you imagine the impact on world markets if the dollar vanished and the debt paper became worthless?
No, we wouldn't be invading, but we'd be snapping up land through offering to govern federally the listless, wayward states.
*grins*
Teh_pantless_hero
17-01-2007, 20:53
the British would atempt to reinstate its imperial rule on North America, this will not work of course they tried once and failed, what makes them think it will work this time.
The way some idiots talk you would think the War of 1812 happened last month.
Why would Canada invade? what makes you think that we want you? Any state interested in joining us would have to apply and acceptance is not a sure thing. We've had a couple Caribbean island states offer to join our nation and they've been turned down. I can't speak for Mexico (I'm sure they're still pissed about having their lands stolen) but I don't think a Mexican invasion is likely either.
And why would the dollar vanish? I could see it being devalued as it likely will be anyways but there is no reason it shouldn't stay in use it's the practical thing to do.
Meh, might as well make the Euro the standard if the American dollar collapses. After all, the Euro's the second-strongest currency in the world.
And honestly, I think we could survive if we included California, Oregon, Washington and all those nummy, bite-sized states on the east coast.
After all, they wouldn't get proportional representation in our Legislature for at least fifty years, or until the population evened out, whichever came last. And hell, we still don't have proportional representation in our Senate.
The way some idiots talk you would think the War of 1812 happened last month.
Well, when you just learn about it in History class...
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 20:59
Meh, might as well make the Euro the standard if the American dollar collapses. After all, the Euro's the strongest currency in the world.
Fix't.
Fix't.
1.00 EUR = 0.656768 GBP
After all, the Euro's the second-strongest currency in the world.
Fix't.
http://www.xe.com
Socialist Pyrates
17-01-2007, 21:05
Meh, might as well make the Euro the standard if the American dollar collapses. After all, the Euro's the second-strongest currency in the world.
And honestly, I think we could survive if we included California, Oregon, Washington and all those nummy, bite-sized states on the east coast.
After all, they wouldn't get proportional representation in our Legislature for at least fifty years, or until the population evened out, whichever came last. And hell, we still don't have proportional representation in our Senate.
US dollar value is artificial as is the US standard of living, it survives only because of foreign investment in the US.
including US states particularly California would threaten our culture and system of government. Washington would be nice as it was once ours.
Maybe some of the other border states would be beneficial to us and them, the Dakota's, Montana, Vermont, Maine.
US dollar value is artificial as is the US standard of living, it survives only because of foreign investment in the US.
including US states particularly California would threaten our culture and system of government. Washington would be nice as it was once ours.
Maybe some of the other border states would be beneficial to us and them, the Dakota's, Montana, Vermont, Maine.
Of course, we'd have to Canadianize them, and they'd have to agree to accept our Charter and restructure their states to be, legislatively, similar to the provinces. And notice what I said about not having equal political representation for a minimum of fifty years.
Socialist Pyrates
17-01-2007, 21:12
Of course, we'd have to Canadianize them, and they'd have to agree to accept our Charter and restructure their states to be, legislatively, similar to the provinces. And notice what I said about not having equal political representation for a minimum of fifty years.
well that wouldn't be fair in a democracy I'd expect them to have equal rights...but I would expect them to give up their handguns, accept gay marriage, Medicare and learn to smoke pot without fear of prison.
well that wouldn't be fair in a democracy I'd expect them to have equal rights...but I would expect them to give up their handguns, accept gay marriage, Medicare and learn to smoke pot without fear of prison.
Equal rights, yes. Equal representation? Not until we could be sure of how they would affect our country. After all, keep in mind that the ACLU and things like that would be considered centrist up here.
Neo Bretonnia
17-01-2007, 21:19
hmmm... Thinking Internationally...
If suddenly Washington DC were destroyed and it gradually became clear that there was no longer a central Government, I think the following would take place:
Year 1:Nominally still one country, we'd continue flying the flag and conducting trade, but gradually people would come to see this trade as being with the individual state, not the USA. Mexican nationals flood into New Mexico, Arizona, SoCal and Texas. Texas responds by assigning miltary patrols to the Rio Grande. Locals become refugees and move up into Colorado and Nevada. This pretty much means business as usual in Denver, but refugees in Nevada start to glow in the dark.
Year 15:The Confederate States of America holds its first Presidential Elections in Richmond. It's composed of the same states that ceceded in 1861 including West Virginia, which didn't exist at the time. Desperate pleas from Maryland to be included are ignored.
Year 3:China completes negotiations to purchase substantial land and business interests in California. Texas annexes Oklahoma and Kansas. Cuba invades Florida but is stopped at Lake Okeechobee by FL national guard. Having taken Disney World, Castrois satisfies and explains to the Cuban people that Disney World was actually built by the Cuban Government. The people believe him. Elian Gonzalez is installed as Governor of southern Florida. His aunts and uncles flee to Northern Florida only to be sent back by the Confederate Government. A controversial photo is taken as their house is raided by Confederate forces, leading to a failed re-election bid by President George Allen the following year.
Year 5:Canada annexes several northern states, including Idaho, Montana, North/South Dakota, Minnesota. These areas are too large with too small a population and not sufficient miltary assets to be self-sufficient. None of the locals actually notice.
Year 6:Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Conneticut, Rhode Island and Massachussets merge to form one State. Their capital: Boston. Mexico annexes Arizona and New Mexico, War declared between California and Mexico. Texas allies with California and declares war on Mexico. Nobody knows why, really, except that it sounds like a good way to get some targetpractice.
Year 10: Colorado annexes Wyoming, Nebraska and Oklahoma, establishing a new nation with the Capital at Denver. California annexes Nevada and Oregon. Washington State is nominally independent but has heavy economic ties with Canada.
Year 11:Using resources purchased in California, China invades California. Mexico withdraws from the region and fortifies its borders with California/Colorado/Texas. The border is finally secure when Mexico decided to enforce it.
Year 13: After several unsuccesful attempts to get people to pay attention to it, Maryland finally asks to be annexed by SOMEBODY. This leads to 200 years of Independent Maryland self-rule.
Year 14:Chicago becomes the capital of a new midwestern coalition of states, including Illinios, Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin. Ohio joins later after being snubbed by Pennsylvania for a merger.
Year 15:Hawaii learns of the collapse of the United States Government and promptly boots all the White people out.
Year 16:Alaska is annexed by Russia after strenuous negotiations with the Innuit over how to handle all the Canadians who have begun moving in. Eventually it's decided to let them stay since, after all, the Americans get to stay, too.
Year 17:The Phoenix Coyotes win the Stanley Cup for the first time, which also marks the first win of the Cup by an all-latino hockey team.
Year 20:New Jersey and Pennsylvania, after having made a valiant effort to remain independent, finally join with New York, which has changed its name to Clintonia to honor its first President, Hillary Clinton, who has been elected for life. A revolution begins led by the aging Rudy Guliani but is put down by members of the Pennsylvania NRA, in the most ironic event in human history.
Year 22:War breaks out between the CSA and Clintonia over who has to keep Maryland. Eventually a peace treaty is drafted that guarantees independence for Maryland. Delaware is taken by Clintonia as a concession, and finaly gets its first sales-tax law. This finally gets Marylanders to stop going to Dover Downs to gamble.
Year 23:California falls to Chinese military invasion, which also takes Washington. A second invasion into Colorado is planned, but Chinese soldiers become addicted to gambling at Las Vegas and so the plans are abandoned.
Year 24:New York, having finally sunk below the Atlantic Waterline, becomes the Venice of the West, doubling its tourist dollars inonly one year. The reason:it's finally possible to get from Midtown to Lower Manhattan in less than an hour without using the subway.
Year 25:Maryland attempts to assert its badassedness by invading CLintonia to capture the Delaware region. Upon failing, they manage to avert a counterattack by claiming "Just kidding!" Marlyand President O'Malley commits seppuku to deal with his gambling addiction withdrawls.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 21:21
My bad. I wasn't talking about the geography. More just the people. I should have made that clear.
If it's the people, I'd love to have a tri-city of Fort Lauderdale, New Orleans and the San Francisco Bay area. That'd be a party all the time place. :D
Socialist Pyrates
17-01-2007, 21:23
Equal rights, yes. Equal representation? Not until we could be sure of how they would affect our country. After all, keep in mind that the ACLU and things like that would be considered centrist up here.
well you can be sure a state with the population of California would have a detrimental effect on our culture(how would we stop all the criminals from entering our country without a border). Only smaller border states need apply otherwise assimilation would be impossible and it we who would be assimilated. Alaska would be a natural choice.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 21:24
1.00 EUR = 0.656768 GBP
Fix't.
http://www.xe.com
Ogg the caveman wants to tell you about currency strength.
Ogg sees that you think the number of pennies makes currency stronger :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
NO. Ogg tell you that it not the number off pennies, but how much currency will fluctuate when you go buy stuff with it. Euro today = Euro tomorrow. Dollar today = ? tommorrow.
Ogg ask you, why you think yen stronger in 1980s than dollar even though dollar = many yen pennies.
Hell, Ogg only caveman but he grasp that concept. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 21:30
If it's the people, I'd love to have a tri-city of Fort Lauderdale, New Orleans and the San Francisco Bay area. That'd be a party all the time place. :D
Like we don't party in the tri-state?
Nah, that would be awesome. A micronation of fun productive people.
The Nazz
17-01-2007, 21:31
Like we don't party in the tri-state?
Nah, that would be awesome. A micronation of fun productive people.
Nah--I've just never partied in the tri-state, but I have lived in or near all those places, and love every one of them.
Ogg the caveman wants to tell you about currency strength.
Ogg sees that you think the number of pennies makes currency stronger :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
NO. Ogg tell you that it not the number off pennies, but how much currency will fluctuate when you go buy stuff with it. Euro today = Euro tomorrow. Dollar today = ? tommorrow.
Ogg ask you, why you think yen stronger in 1980s than dollar even though dollar = many yen pennies.
Hell, Ogg only caveman but he grasp that concept. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
With regards to the relative strengths of the currencies, from what I'm aware, the pound has only been increasing; on the other hand, the Euro has been fluctuating with regards to the American Dollar.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, but if I'm not wrong, please apologize.
Lacadaemon
17-01-2007, 21:40
With regards to the relative strengths of the currencies, from what I'm aware, the pound has only been increasing; on the other hand, the Euro has been fluctuating with regards to the American Dollar.
If I'm wrong, please correct me, but if I'm not wrong, please apologize.
The pound has been increasing because:
1. The massive amount of dollar denominated treasury bills that the bank of england keeps buying to keep the pound low.
2. The tightening of interest rates that divert carry trade from dollar to sterling denominated assets.
But that has nothing to do with the strength of the currency. It is merely finanacial manipulation. (Indeed sterling is artificial low v. the dollar).
What you have to look at is the ability for any government to pay back it's debt. In other words, how good is the promise that the currency bears. In this case, the Euro slightly edges out the dollar. The eurozone GNI compared to its net external debt is a favorable ratio to the dollar.
Sterling is toilet paper.
Consider yourself corrected.
Marrakech II
17-01-2007, 21:51
I personally think the US would form up much like it has already. Just a different government and perhaps using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the base again. I think Americans are far to ingrained with the country being united to let it fall into smaller states. If some states did break away they would be quickly gathered back up by the new government. As far as a foreign power invading. They would be quickly repelled and most likely push the Union back together against a common enemy. Would make the Iraqi insurgents look like kindergartners.
Intestinal fluids
17-01-2007, 22:30
I wonder what Utah would do. Im thinking they would dig a huge ditch and build a huge wall and landmine it heavily around the entire perimeter and man it with Holy Snipers for any non mormon who wanders too close. The magic underwear gets you past the gate.
ok, let me explain things here:
Ca, NV, WA and OR would combine into a common alliance.
Hawaii, and Utah, would go and form their own seperate nations, where as alaska has no formal gov't, just for a time being as canada and russia compete to see who will control its natural resources.
Id,WY,ND, MT, and SD form an alliance and strut their nuclear strength. No one messes with them :D
CO, NM, AZ, and TX form an alliance only to ward off an attack by mexicans.
The south is solid, as always, but includes WV and not KY or AR. Southern FL is a colony of the CA,NV, WA, and OR alliance. The south will face lots of rioting as blacks and whites clash, when several pro segregationist from the pre civil rights era, sneak their way into power. You will see many blacks moving to southern FL, and into the great lakes area and in the NE.
AR goes with KS,NE, Ia, and hald of MO, and they use their ag, to their advantage.
IL,KY, the othe half of MO, IN,MI,OH, and MN all make the Great Lake/Mississippi river alliance, where as they control the majority of the inner waterways.
Md, and DE, all the way up to ME, are in the NE alliance, which becomes a common wealth of Canada.
This is actually a pretty kick-ass idea. If all of the 50 states seceded and became their own little country, then they would have to compete with one another economically, since people could pack up and leave and go to another state to do business. We'd get something akin to Renaissance free cities like Flanders, Venice, Florence, Amsterdam, etc. Not to mention that the Federal government, with its control-freak regulations, pork-barrel subsidies and taxes would be gone, since there wouldn't even be a Federal government. Hurray for secession!
Ashlyynn
17-01-2007, 23:41
As for my opinion on all that, just look at my coffee cup.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a353/tuebor/CIMG0654.jpg
cool mug wall, where did you get that?
The Lone Alliance
18-01-2007, 00:54
The Bible Belt will attempt a Religious Theocracy in the South.
The West coast will Combine. New Mexico, Arizonia and Nevada will fall, (Their nukes would be unusable because the codes would still be based on the Presidental codes)
Northeast would combine. The Midwest might make their own nation but being the 'breadbasket' and having the control of the Mississippi river they would be invaded if they didn't join another side.
South Florida will be taken over by the cuban refugees. North Florida by Immigrants.
Alaska will go to Russia or Canada.
US troops will revolt on each other since they're made up of people in different states, while National Guard will have to take control. I predict rioting and civil war inside each state. (There will always be those loyal to older times)
Sel Appa
18-01-2007, 01:08
Party!!!
East Pusna
18-01-2007, 01:12
Actually, I have to be fair. Every day I wish the tri-state area* would become an ubar rich micronation.
*that's the real nj/ny/ct tri state. not one of these johnny come lately 'tristates'/
Actually Pa and De already took Nj for their tri state area. Get you're own Nj.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2007, 01:37
Actually, I have to be fair. Every day I wish the tri-state area* would become an ubar rich micronation.
*that's the real nj/ny/ct tri state. not one of these johnny come lately 'tristates'/
Here's one CT resident that hopes that NEVER happens (I don't agree with NY's and NJ's policies on certain things).
Novus-America
18-01-2007, 02:25
And here's one New Yorker who would sooner commit sepukku than have, "Oh, Canada" as my national anthem.
Seriously, people, the only way that the US would be destroyed is by a civil war or invasion. Even if the entire legislative and executive branch was destroyed, and the whole POTUS line, the US can bounce back. State governors have the power to appoint new senators and congressmen should his predecessor resign, die, or whatever. The only way for the US to fall apart like the OP has in mind would be to destroy the state and federal governments, no other way.
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2007, 02:53
well that wouldn't be fair in a democracy I'd expect them to have equal rights...but I would expect them to give up their handguns, accept gay marriage, Medicare and learn to smoke pot without fear of prison.
I can accept gay marriage (although it won't affect me in the slightest), Medicare (although I don't agree with the idea of socialized healthcare), and pot smoking (although I would never do it), but giving up handguns would probably be a sticking point, as there are a lot in circulation and I'm sure legal owners wouldn't be keen on getting them taken away without having commited a crime.
Equal rights, yes. Equal representation? Not until we could be sure of how they would affect our country. After all, keep in mind that the ACLU and things like that would be considered centrist up here.
If you think that any US state or city would agree to join Canada without equal representation, you're wrong. That's one of the reasons the US broke away from England in the first place.
Slaughterhouse five
18-01-2007, 02:54
IF it does by any chance happen i can suppose that alot of the UNited States millitary equipment would disappear and some how reappear in other countries being used by other governments and some really rich arms dealers
Chietuste
18-01-2007, 02:55
If you think that any US state or city would agree to join Canada without equal representation, you're wrong. That's one of the reasons the US broke away from England in the first place.
We behaved that way before, but what ensures that we will behave that way again?
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2007, 03:05
IF it does by any chance happen i can suppose that alot of the UNited States millitary equipment would disappear and some how reappear in other countries being used by other governments and some really rich arms dealers
And hopefully, some of it would end up in my possesion (/me imagines a HMMWV body on an M1A1 Abrams chassis). :D
Gun Manufacturers
18-01-2007, 03:07
We behaved that way before, but what ensures that we will behave that way again?
Because we still act that way. We still want representation for our interests, even with our current government. Changing to a new government won't change the desire to have our voices heard and counted.
New Granada
18-01-2007, 03:08
I think it would interesting to sitting in London one day and suddenly here on the Telivision that the United States was no more, but fifty newly independent countries had sprung up. I mean state governments are capable of running their own former states, now countries and every state has thousands of army reserve troops. So each state/country would have an army. What do think?
I think i'd be more interested in the flying pigs and elves and other senseless crazy stuff.
Iztatepopotla
18-01-2007, 03:10
I personally think the US would form up much like it has already. Just a different government and perhaps using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the base again. I think Americans are far to ingrained with the country being united to let it fall into smaller states. If some states did break away they would be quickly gathered back up by the new government. As far as a foreign power invading. They would be quickly repelled and most likely push the Union back together against a common enemy. Would make the Iraqi insurgents look like kindergartners.
What he said. The states also understand the advantages of being under a single government. The resulting federation could be looser than the current one, but basically the same.
Ashlyynn
18-01-2007, 03:51
We behaved that way before, but what ensures that we will behave that way again?
how about a little thing called common sense?
Chietuste
18-01-2007, 04:04
how about a little thing called common sense?
Unfortunately, that's not so common.
If the United States were to collapse, there would be a lot of fear and uncertainty. I would be willing to bet most persons would put aside "taxation without representation" to get a feeling of security.
Ashlyynn
18-01-2007, 04:27
Unfortunately, that's not so common.
If the United States were to collapse, there would be a lot of fear and uncertainty. I would be willing to bet most persons would put aside "taxation without representation" to get a feeling of security.
I think you might be suprised to the contrary....unless your thinking about all the whiney, talk will solve everything liberals.
Chietuste
18-01-2007, 04:28
I think you might be suprised to the contrary....unless your thinking about all the whiney talk will solve everything liberals.
If I were surprised, I would be pleased.
The Scandinvans
18-01-2007, 04:35
At last, the time of me and my followers will come and we will then conquer ze world!
Ashlyynn
18-01-2007, 04:54
At last, the time of me and my followers will come and we will then conquer ze world!
all 12 of you?:D :rolleyes: :p
Wallonochia
18-01-2007, 05:47
cool mug wall, where did you get that?
http://www.cafepress.com/republicofstate
The Nazz
18-01-2007, 05:53
I think you might be suprised to the contrary....unless your thinking about all the whiney, talk will solve everything liberals.
Shit. It was the "kill all the fucking ragheads" conservative Republicans who lined up to give away civil liberties after 9/11. It was the liberals who were trying to put the brakes on everything, and who got called everything from coward to traitor for their efforts. Y'all talk tough, but you bend over and spread 'em when it gets scary.
The Undead States
18-01-2007, 06:00
The South would rise again!!!!
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 06:01
The people's republic of Southern Illinois would rejoice!!!! Mwahaha. I would take control and give permission to raid Chicago(who is going to fight back in Chi-town? they have no guns!!!!) and we will be victorious! Teach them a lesson for fucking us over the last 150 years.
whatever, northern kentucky
The Nazz
18-01-2007, 06:01
The South would rise again!!!!
So--federal government collapse = yeast?
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 06:02
Y'all talk tough, but you bend over and spread 'em when it gets scary.
and not even particularly scary. mildly concerning, at worst.
The Nazz
18-01-2007, 06:15
and not even particularly scary. moderately concerning, at worst.I was going to grad school in red country on 9/11/2001. The panic I saw was unbelievable. Gas lines miles long, at pumps where the price had doubled--and I'm not exaggerating--that very day. I was driving home from class--worried, of course--but wondering "where the hell are they planning on going?" and "why are we worried? This is Bumfuck Arkansas. We're at the bottom of the list for terrorist attacks."
I'll tell you who I was really worried for--my Arabic friends in the Translation program, especially the two women who wore the hijab.
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 06:33
I was going to grad school in red country on 9/11/2001. The panic I saw was unbelievable. Gas lines miles long, at pumps where the price had doubled--and I'm not exaggerating--that very day. I was driving home from class--worried, of course--but wondering "where the hell are they planning on going?" and "why are we worried? This is Bumfuck Arkansas. We're at the bottom of the list for terrorist attacks."
I'll tell you who I was really worried for--my Arabic friends in the Translation program, especially the two women who wore the hijab.
crazy. me, i was in one of the bluer counties in wisconsin. we had a "can we please not randomly blow the fuck out of some poor country over this?" protest that night
Iztatepopotla
18-01-2007, 06:47
crazy. me, i was in one of the bluer counties in wisconsin. we had a "can we please not randomly blow the fuck out of some poor country over this?" protest that night
How did that work out?
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 06:51
How did that work out?
about as well as could be hoped
Bubabalu
18-01-2007, 21:00
I personally think the US would form up much like it has already. Just a different government and perhaps using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the base again. I think Americans are far to ingrained with the country being united to let it fall into smaller states. If some states did break away they would be quickly gathered back up by the new government. As far as a foreign power invading. They would be quickly repelled and most likely push the Union back together against a common enemy. Would make the Iraqi insurgents look like kindergartners.
The original premise was that the States were to be independent nations, having one federal government to regulate commerce between the States, to be in charge of maintaining a common currency, to have the power to make deals with other nations (foreign affairs) and to provide for the common defense. At the time, the US military was very small, with most of the ground forces being the State Militias (not the National Guard, which was created in the 1900's).
So basically, the States ran themselves pretty much however they wanted to. This concept of Federal rule came about around 1865 with the end of the US Civil War. When the Southern States created the Confederate States of America and left the Union, then President Lincoln shit the proverbial brick. At that time, the Confederacy was in the process of abolishing slavery, which was a requirement from Great Britain and France in order to recognize the CSA. Slavery was never the cause of the US Civil War, it was the issue of state rights. Lincoln abolished slavery in the CSA states, not in the union states.
What would happen if the Federal government were to collapse? There would be one hell of a party, thats for sure. After all, none of my so called "elected" representatives to DC really give a flying f**k at a rolling donught going downhill about the state, they are too concerned with the lobbyists and what the party says.
Vic
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 21:49
At that time, the Confederacy was in the process of abolishing slavery
which neatly explains why all the declarations of secession were almost entirely about how mean the north was for not liking the fact that southern fucktards thought they owned people. and also why the csa constitution contained a clause that read "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
The South Islands
18-01-2007, 22:23
which neatly explains why all the declarations of secession were almost entirely about how mean the north was for not liking the fact that southern fucktards thought they owned people. and also why the csa constitution contained a clause that read "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Southern Aristocrats wanted independence more than they wanted slaves. If France and/or Britian had offered to recognize the Confederacy on the condition of the Abolition of Slavery, they would have gladly done it.
Eve Online
18-01-2007, 22:31
I'm sure quite a few people would dance around, singing "Alleluia!" until their local government put the screws to them.
The South Islands
18-01-2007, 22:31
Well, it was pretty obvious that Britain was going to recognize the Confederacy if they abolished slavery, yet for some reason it didn't. Odd that.
The British government did not want to recognize the Confederacy for fear of domestic disturbances. The French were actually the ones pushing for recognition.
The South Islands
18-01-2007, 22:32
...and there goes Dr. Jolt :mad:
CthulhuFhtagn
18-01-2007, 22:32
I was going to grad school in red country on 9/11/2001. The panic I saw was unbelievable. Gas lines miles long, at pumps where the price had doubled--and I'm not exaggerating--that very day. I was driving home from class--worried, of course--but wondering "where the hell are they planning on going?" and "why are we worried? This is Bumfuck Arkansas. We're at the bottom of the list for terrorist attacks."
I'll tell you who I was really worried for--my Arabic friends in the Translation program, especially the two women who wore the hijab.
Man, that's way different from RI. And apparently from everywhere else that was at risk for an attack or was near an area at risk. I can't remember if RI still has an operational naval base.
CthulhuFhtagn
18-01-2007, 22:34
Southern Aristocrats wanted independence more than they wanted slaves. If France and/or Britian had offered to recognize the Confederacy on the condition of the Abolition of Slavery, they would have gladly done it.
Well, it was pretty obvious that Britain was going to recognize the Confederacy if they abolished slavery, yet for some reason it didn't. Odd that.
Confederate revival or no, I'm not so sure the South would be such a hotseat after a US collapse. I'm more concerned about affairs West.
For those who've pointed out Utah as a potential contender: kudos.:cool: I am not Mormon, but I have friends who are and their sense of identity and industry would propel an independent Deseret (the nigh-certain name Utah would adopt on secession) to some degree of wealth and power; especially if Mormon-heavy regions in neighboring states (such as Las Vegas and Colorado Springs) joined in. Of course, that could lead to war with a proverbial "Second Bear Flag Republic" in California, whose economy would be heavily linked to Las Vegas and whose secular culture would find Deseret's religiosity distasteful at best.
Texas would probably be the most powerful of the new countries, given the major US Army presence there and its prior experience as an independent state; especially if it annexed Oklahoma, and then partitioned New Mexico and and Colorado with Deseret as part of a compromise treaty, to reclaim its original borders. Frankly, I don't see Mexico really reconquering it b/c California and Deseret would have as much reason to fight back as Texas would; and means of their own besides.
The old "Oregon Country" would probably reunify Washington, Oregon and Idaho; with perhaps British Columbia and Alaska too under the "Cascadia" name being so often bandied about, if Canada goes down too as it might. I see this region being neutral but fairly powerful, albeit in perpetual conflict with whoever tries to grab the Plains states and their nuclear arsenals.
Aside from these likely supernations, I have a difficult time seeing specifics besides obvious smaller nations such as Hawaii and Vermont. Chicago would of course become a national capital, but how many states could Illinois succesfully dominate? And might not Virginia, the Carolinas et. al. just decide to take the Texan route and revisit some of those old "sea to sea" grants the colonies got instead of trying the Confederacy again? (If so, bye-bye Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, possibly even Ohio all the way to Wisconsin...)
CthulhuFhtagn
18-01-2007, 22:56
Also, the Northeast would probably set the South on fire again.
Free Soviets
18-01-2007, 23:05
Chicago would of course become a national capital, but how many states could Illinois succesfully dominate?
illinois as an entity is unstable. the downstaters and northern kentuckians would go join non-chicago indiana or oklahoma or whatever (yes, i know that even northern kentuckia illinois is nowhere near oklahoma).
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 00:21
which neatly explains why all the declarations of secession were almost entirely about how mean the north was for not liking the fact that southern fucktards thought they owned people. and also why the csa constitution contained a clause that read "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed."
Very true. However, the British and French diplomats that were on the way back to Europe with the treaty with the CSA, which called for the abolition of slavery in the CSA, were intercepted on the high seas by the Union Navy and not allowed to continue their travel to their respective countries. However, keep in mind that the Union did not pass any laws that guaranteed the Negro's any freedom in Union states.
Also, the same Federal government that decided to do away with State rights did not take any action to give the "Freed Negro's" any rights until the 1960's.
CthulhuFhtagn
19-01-2007, 00:34
Also, the same Federal government that decided to do away with State rights did not take any action to give the "Freed Negro's" any rights until the 1960's.
Except that thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, and Reconstruction. Incidentally, the only times that the federal government didn't try to give blacks rights was when it was controlled by the South. Oh well, don't let me get facts in the way of your waving the flag of armed treason.
Farnhamia
19-01-2007, 00:57
Very true. However, the British and French diplomats that were on the way back to Europe with the treaty with the CSA, which called for the abolition of slavery in the CSA, were intercepted on the high seas by the Union Navy and not allowed to continue their travel to their respective countries. However, keep in mind that the Union did not pass any laws that guaranteed the Negro's any freedom in Union states.
Also, the same Federal government that decided to do away with State rights did not take any action to give the "Freed Negro's" any rights until the 1960's.
Which British & French diplomats? In November of 1861 the USS San Jacinto stopped the British mail steamer, RMS Trent, and removed the Confederacy's minister to Britain, James Mason, and their minister to France, John Slidell. The British were extremely angry and there was a distinct possibility of Britain going to war with the Union over this, but it was smoothed over and Mason and Slidell were released from prison and sent on their way to Europe.
Captain pooby
19-01-2007, 01:18
Highly doubtful. California has more of a chance of being kicked out the the gov't going under.
That said, The states with the least amount of freeloaders will do the best off. Montana, Texas, florida, etc.
That said, should the USG break up Texas will be rioting. The people who want Texas to be on it's own vs La Raza, Aztlan, etc. Mexican empire groups.
Civil War.
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 01:25
Except that thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, and Reconstruction. Incidentally, the only times that the federal government didn't try to give blacks rights was when it was controlled by the South. Oh well, don't let me get facts in the way of your waving the flag of armed treason.
Waving the flag of armed treason? I am only stating historical facts. After all, the Civil Rights movement was started in the 1960's, so you can say that the CSA was responsible for all that happened between the end of the civil war and the 1960's. I cannot find anything in the US history in which the Federal government did anything to stop the Jim Crow laws of the south, or to give any Negro's their civil rights according to the 14th Amendment. After all, it was the Director of the FBI-the agency responsible for enforcing the civil rights-that would not hire any black agents; except as his personal chauffeur.
But lets remember, that the same US Supreme Court did not really decide upon individual rights until the 60's also. Just look the landmarks decision of Miranda v. Arizona (the right to remain silent...)[Miranda v. Arizona (consolidated with Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart), 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court which was argued February 28–March 1, 1966 and decided June 13, 1966. The Court held that criminal suspects must be informed of their right to consult with an attorney and of their right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police.], the right to an attorney [Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), was a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution to provide lawyers in criminal cases for defendants unable to afford their own attorneys], the protections against unreasonable search and seizures (the fruit from the poisoned tree doctrine)[ MICHIGAN v. TUCKER, 417 U.S. 433 (1974)] So, if you want to delude yourself that it was all the result of the CSA,
And before you accuse me again of waving the flag of armed treason, I'm pretty sure that I have done for my country and my state that you have, or probably will. I took an oath over 25 years ago to support and defend the constitution. I did my time in the field, taking care of business for my government, and I have spent over 20 years in the streets working as a law enforcement officer and fire officer. With all that being said, I will be the first one that will take up arms against any person or entity (again) that will pose a threat to my country, and protect those are are too busy calling others traitorous.
I did not see any need to insult anyone in the thread, so you may want to give the same courtesy to others that you don't know anything about.
Vic
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 01:44
Which British & French diplomats? In November of 1861 the USS San Jacinto stopped the British mail steamer, RMS Trent, and removed the Confederacy's minister to Britain, James Mason, and their minister to France, John Slidell. The British were extremely angry and there was a distinct possibility of Britain going to war with the Union over this, but it was smoothed over and Mason and Slidell were released from prison and sent on their way to Europe.
Thank you very much for the correction Farnhamia. It was the CSA diplomats to the UK and France. Sometimes its hard to do research while at work.
Vic
Waving the flag of armed treason? I am only stating historical facts. After all, the Civil Rights movement was started in the 1960's, so you can say that the CSA was responsible for all that happened between the end of the civil war and the 1960's. I cannot find anything in the US history in which the Federal government did anything to stop the Jim Crow laws of the south, or to give any Negro's their civil rights according to the 14th Amendment. After all, it was the Director of the FBI-the agency responsible for enforcing the civil rights-that would not hire any black agents; except as his personal chauffeur.
Reconstruction dear. Remember that? If it wasn't for the south deciding that they didn't want the ****** having the vote (and freedom to move and work) we'd be in a better place today. They never should have been allowed to get away with the treason of 77. If the south hadn't bullied the north into abandoning the blacks in 77 we wouldn't have needed a civil rights movement.
That's what gets me about those who claim that the civil war was about 'state's rights'. Why would they insist upon the disenfranchisement and pseudoslavery of blacks if they were going to set them free anyway? If they didn't care about slavery, why make them sharecroppers? Why institute laws that in effect reinstituted slavery?
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 02:53
Reconstruction dear. Remember that? If it wasn't for the south deciding that they didn't want the ****** having the vote (and freedom to move and work) we'd be in a better place today. They never should have been allowed to get away with the treason of 77. If the south hadn't bullied the north into abandoning the blacks in 77 we wouldn't have needed a civil rights movement.
That's what gets me about those who claim that the civil war was about 'state's rights'. Why would they insist upon the disenfranchisement and pseudoslavery of blacks if they were going to set them free anyway? If they didn't care about slavery, why make them sharecroppers? Why institute laws that in effect reinstituted slavery?
So, you are telling me that the Union was powerful enough to defeat the South, to declare slavery illegal in the southern states, but did not have the power to enforce the laws that it passed against slavery? The north did not have the military might in 77 to enforce the will of the union? Or could it be that the north was more concerned with maintaining the south in the union? If it was all about slavery, why did the emancipation proclamation was not applicable to the union states? Or could it be that the north did not really give a damn, except to maintain the union? Why did it take the federal government from 1865 until the mid 1960's to enforce the civil rights to the blacks, which was supposed to have been granted at the end of the civil war? Why was no federal actio taken until almost one hundred years later to enforce the bill of rights and voting rights? I guess that reconstruction and the treason of 77 is responsible for that? Or could it be that the population in the northern states did not really give a flying f**k about the blacks? Oh sure, the north cared so much about the blacks, that they were not allowed to fight alongside whites, and the federal military was not racially integrated until after the Korean war.
Sure, lets blame it on reconstruction and the 77. That explains the white apathy for over one hundred years.
Vic
So, you are telling me that the Union was powerful enough to defeat the South, to declare slavery illegal in the southern states, but did not have the power to enforce the laws that it passed against slavery? The north did not have the military might in 77 to enforce the will of the union? Or could it be that the north was more concerned with maintaining the south in the union? If it was all about slavery, why did the emancipation proclamation was not applicable to the union states? Or could it be that the north did not really give a damn, except to maintain the union? Why did it take the federal government from 1865 until the mid 1960's to enforce the civil rights to the blacks, which was supposed to have been granted at the end of the civil war? Why was no federal actio taken until almost one hundred years later to enforce the bill of rights and voting rights? I guess that reconstruction and the treason of 77 is responsible for that? Or could it be that the population in the northern states did not really give a flying f**k about the blacks? Oh sure, the north cared so much about the blacks, that they were not allowed to fight alongside whites, and the federal military was not racially integrated until after the Korean war.
Sure, lets blame it on reconstruction and the 77. That explains the white apathy for over one hundred years.
Vic
Oh, they didn't give a flying fuck. Well, the people in power didn't. They got tired. Same reason as Vietnam. That doesn't change the fact that the only reason why race relations in the US remained as bad as they did was because of the southerners and the damn redeemers. The federal goverment (army) mostly did enforce black rights, up until the election of 76 and the mess that followed. That small time period was one of great advancement in race relations, and the south pushed it all back. We had peace and equality IN OUR HANDS. But the north got tired of keeping the south down. It wasn't a vote getting in the north anymore. So they sold them out for the presidency.
Do try and learn some history. "Why did it take the federal government from 1865 until the mid 1960's to enforce the civil rights to the blacks" is absolutely wrong. They did enforce black civil rights. Quite frankly though, the south should have never been allowed to get back up on its feet, not after what they did, and most definitely not allowed to disenfrancise blacks like they did after 76/7. They (radical republicans) pleaded with Grant to give federal troops to protect blacks voting in the deep south during the election of 76, which they did before (a lot, the southerners wanted to keep the blacks down), but he refused, not wanting to piss off southern whites. Also note I did not say that the North was fighting against slavery. Most of them couldn't give a crap. What I said was that the south was fighting to keep slavery. There is a bit of a difference. Yes, the south had other grievences, but foremost among them was slavery. The southern society was founded upon slavery. The vice president of the CSA said as such.
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 03:39
Oh, they didn't give a flying fuck. Well, the people in power didn't. They got tired. Same reason as Vietnam. That doesn't change the fact that the only reason why race relations in the US remained as bad as they did was because of the southerners and the damn redeemers. The federal goverment (army) mostly did enforce black rights, up until the election of 76 and the mess that followed. That small time period was one of great advancement in race relations, and the south pushed it all back. We had peace and equality IN OUR HANDS. But the north got tired of keeping the south down. It wasn't a vote getting in the north anymore. So they sold them out for the presidency.
Do try and learn some history. "Why did it take the federal government from 1865 until the mid 1960's to enforce the civil rights to the blacks" is absolutely wrong. They did enforce black civil rights. Quite frankly though, the south should have never been allowed to get back up on its feet, not after what they did, and most definitely not allowed to disenfrancise blacks like they did after 76/7. They (radical republicans) pleaded with Grant to give federal troops to protect blacks voting in the deep south during the election of 76, which they did before (a lot, the southerners wanted to keep the blacks down), but he refused, not wanting to piss off southern whites. Also note I did not say that the North was fighting against slavery. Most of them couldn't give a crap. What I said was that the south was fighting to keep slavery. There is a bit of a difference. Yes, the south had other grievences, but foremost among them was slavery. The southern society was founded upon slavery. The vice president of the CSA said as such.
Oh I have learned from history. Obviously, you are in agreement that the Federal government did not give a damn about the blacks, and it took them until the 1960's to get the cajones to enforce the laws that they won through war.
If you want to place blame on the whole problem after the war, then blame it on the north, since they were the ones that, in your own words "We had peace and equality IN OUR HANDS. But the north got tired of keeping the south down. It wasn't a vote getting in the north anymore. So they sold them out for the presidency. " It is your own words that say it so well. The north gave up after winning the war. They also betrayed their stated political cause for the war, in order to maintain their political status quo.
I find it ironic that in the context of this thread, so many are scared to death of anything that would let the southern states escape the control of the federal government. After all, this is a hypothetical thread. There is no need for those that are so guilt ridden, insecure and scared of an event that we have no control over, to try to rewrite what happened. The civil war is over, the north did not live up to its promise to the slaves, so live with it (the same way some will tell southerners that they lost the war, so live with it).
Till later, y'all/youse all (take your pick) be careful out there.
Vic
This whole brouhaha over the Civil War's meta-issues is why I suspect if the federal government died, the old colonial borders would be more tempting for the Southern states than any revived Confederacy. States' Rights for all, eh?
Of course, taking the "sea to sea" grants I mentioned before and known human capacity for stupidity into account, this could mean big trouble for Georgia, Virginia and the Carolinas as they fight it out over who gets the states west of them to the Mississippi @ least. Tennessee began as part of North Carolina technically, but how easily would it be taken? Ditto for South Carolina, which would probably be the last to give up on the Confederacy if it did indeed stay dead. Georgia might just try to take over Alabama and Mississippi, but then again so might Florida make a grab for the coastal parts of those states that once belonged to it. The South could get messy in fact, now that I think about it more; just not with the same sort of firepower or wealth to be thrown around if the Plains and Desert Southwest blew up at/over each other.
Could Louisiana make it as an independent country? Maybe a "Quebec of the South?" Also, what of the prospects of Massachussets maybe reconquering Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut again like it technically ruled them under the Puritan regime? I figure New York would enter an alliance at least with New Jersey, Delaware and Philly; and that Virginia would grab Maryland/DC on the sheer principle of the matter before turning northwest to WV, Kentucky and Ohio in pursuit of colonial America's largest single land claim prior to the Northwest Ordnance. Of course, its ability to actually hold all that might just be another matter. As with all of these attempted conquests, moreover.;)
Cocolabadia
19-01-2007, 06:10
All I know is the west coast would probaly band together and live happily ever after, until the ignorant pricks of Texas and the midwest invade
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 14:13
...Of course, taking the "sea to sea" grants I mentioned before and known human capacity for stupidity into account, this could mean big trouble for Georgia, Virginia and the Carolinas as they fight it out over who gets the states west of them to the Mississippi @ least. Tennessee began as part of North Carolina technically, but how easily would it be taken? Ditto for South Carolina, which would probably be the last to give up on the Confederacy if it did indeed stay dead. Georgia might just try to take over Alabama and Mississippi, but then again so might Florida make a grab for the coastal parts of those states that once belonged to it. The South could get messy in fact, now that I think about it more; just not with the same sort of firepower or wealth to be thrown around if the Plains and Desert Southwest blew up at/over each other.
Could Louisiana make it as an independent country? Maybe a "Quebec of the South?" Also, what of the prospects of Massachussets maybe reconquering Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut again like it technically ruled them under the Puritan regime? I figure New York would enter an alliance at least with New Jersey, Delaware and Philly; and that Virginia would grab Maryland/DC on the sheer principle of the matter before turning northwest to WV, Kentucky and Ohio in pursuit of colonial America's largest single land claim prior to the Northwest Ordnance. Of course, its ability to actually hold all that might just be another matter. As with all of these attempted conquests, moreover.;)
What you are saying is a lot like the game "Shatered Union". The premise is that DC gets nuked, and the country breaks into about 9 different regions.
Of course, if it were to happen like the break up of the USSR, look at all the military installations that are in the southern US, Texas and the west. The bases were put in those places because the year round weather allowed for training, plus those areas had little population at the time.
A break up would mean that the south keeps Ft Bragg with the 82nd Airborne Corps, Special Forces, Rangers, and the US Marines from Camp Lejune in NC, Parris Island, and Quantico VA. SC and GA also get some big bases with Ft's Jackson and Benning. There is also Ft Rucker in AL, and don't forget Ft Hood with all the armor in TX. Of course, FL gets to keep the Kennedy space center, and the major air force bases like McDill and the Jacksonville naval facility.
But the really scary part would be the midwest (Dakotas, Montana area). Almost all of the ICBM complexes are in that general area. Whereas the south and the west would become a military power due to the amount and type of military facilities (army, navy, air force, marines), the midwest would become a nuclear power overnight.
And there is no telling what the territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the caribean would do, or side with. Also, Hawaii, Alaska and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Marhall Islands and the Trust Territory of the Pacific would be pretty much isolated as it is now. Oops, Guam has a rather large air force base there too. And Hawaii has the Pearl Harbor naval base.
It would make for an interesting situation.
Vic
The Psyker
19-01-2007, 18:47
What you are saying is a lot like the game "Shatered Union". The premise is that DC gets nuked, and the country breaks into about 9 different regions.
Of course, if it were to happen like the break up of the USSR, look at all the military installations that are in the southern US, Texas and the west. The bases were put in those places because the year round weather allowed for training, plus those areas had little population at the time.
A break up would mean that the south keeps Ft Bragg with the 82nd Airborne Corps, Special Forces, Rangers, and the US Marines from Camp Lejune in NC, Parris Island, and Quantico VA. SC and GA also get some big bases with Ft's Jackson and Benning. There is also Ft Rucker in AL, and don't forget Ft Hood with all the armor in TX. Of course, FL gets to keep the Kennedy space center, and the major air force bases like McDill and the Jacksonville naval facility.
But the really scary part would be the midwest (Dakotas, Montana area). Almost all of the ICBM complexes are in that general area. Whereas the south and the west would become a military power due to the amount and type of military facilities (army, navy, air force, marines), the midwest would become a nuclear power overnight.
And there is no telling what the territories of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands in the caribean would do, or side with. Also, Hawaii, Alaska and the territories of American Samoa, Guam, Marhall Islands and the Trust Territory of the Pacific would be pretty much isolated as it is now. Oops, Guam has a rather large air force base there too. And Hawaii has the Pearl Harbor naval base.
It would make for an interesting situation.
VicWe would also get USSTRATCOM if we are assuming that Millitary institutions would revert to the control of the state they are located in.
Bubabalu
19-01-2007, 19:20
We would also get USSTRATCOM if we are assuming that Millitary institutions would revert to the control of the state they are located in.
I guess that Colorado gets NORAD. It would be very interesting to play out who would get overall control of the nukes.
Of course, the coastal states with submarine bases (Grotonand New London Connecticut, Norfolk Virginia, Kings Bay Georgia, Bangor Washington, San Diego California and Pearl Harbor Hawaii) would also become nuclear powers, but I believe that all nuke orders would go thru USSTRATCOM or NORAD.
So Hawaii, by itself in the Pacific, with a rather large surface naval force, a large air force base and nuke subs...
There would be a lot of dealing and wheeling over control of all those nukes. And lets not forget the nukes at the air force bomber bases.
Vic