Out here on the west coast, we have the best of both worlds: high tech, a fair amount of industry, _and_ lots of agriculture. A West Coast Republic, with probably Nevada coming along for the ride, would be quite viable.

Now, would/should secession happen, especially of wealthier area like the West Coast. I think only under extreme conditions:

1) Conditions in general throughout the US would have to be very, very bad -- economically, socially, etc.

2) There'd have to be the strong perception in the area seceding that they were being exploited or persecuted by the rest of the country, or were doing poorly along with the rest of the country for reasons or decisions that they never agreed to. They'd have to feel that they'd been wronged, were being exploited, and would be better off on their own.

Frankly, the U.S. would have to be near collapse for the positives to outweigh the negatives on a decision like this, so short of that situation I don't think it'd actually happen.

However, there is an intermediate position: the state does not secede, but cooperation with the federal government is diminished. The feds come in to, say, raid pot farms or rogue communities of revolutionaries or people operating abortion clinics (under a new anti-abortion Supreme Court), and the state and local government refuse to back them up. In that case, the state might still be part of the US, but with diminished allegiance to the federal government.

It's happened in my area. Last year the feds came in to raid a medical marijuana plantation (basically tolerated by state and local government) in my very liberal county. They were met with a barricade manned by sick people in wheelchairs. They called the sherrif for backup. When the sherrif came out and saw what was going on, he had some choice words for the federal agents.

About two months ago, federal marshals raided an illegal radio station here in town. They came to the house to carry off the equipment; most of the people involved are just college-town anarchists. Anyway, the marshalls called for backup, and the cops didn't come this time. They said they were busy. The feds got their stuff, but tires were slashed on five of their cars. They had to be towed away.

This kind of diminished cooperation with the feds could be the rule of the day in a state that decides to stop cooperating with the feds. The feds come by and say, we think there are a bunch of revolutionaries meeting up in the mountains evading their taxes and committing abortions, back us up, and the locals say, you're on your own boys, we're busy with the policemen's ball. The power of the feds would be weakened greatly.

No, actually, they're not. Most of the GDP doesn't come from agriculture any more (the link claims a mere 2%).

but do most of our products begin on a basis of farm items are raw resources? Which tend to be located in rural areas.

Many buildings, large structures built in cities, I can go to podunk places in Alambama that turn steel, concrete and stone and they would be the places that build the foundation of that building.

Seccession of cities would be fun because yes lots of money would be there, but there would be a stunning lack of resources. It would be almost like Japan.

Yup, and Clinton governed from the center. Best Republican president since Lincoln. Bush just scored a skootch over half the folks who voted, and sure talks like he won in a landslide. He needs to be disabused of that notion.

Not sure this is true. Through history, most cities have been built with resources from nearby: local stone, local cement, local brick and so on. In today's economy of mass distribution, the Alabama concrete might be cheaper at some city than the local product. But if the Albama 'crete wasn't available, they could produce it locally. I live in a urban/rural county just south of the SF Bay, and we produced and still produce vast amounts of cement, gravel, limestone, and so on for the metro area. The old Italian city-states of yore controlled quite large territories around the city proper, for food and resources. These areas were as dependent on the city, for trade and commerce, as the city was for their resources.

As for steel: from scrap, in the short run. And a constellation of city-states could trade among themselves. In my hypothetical West Coast Republic, on the other hand, there are enough active and mothballed-but-intact mills to get by.

In spite of your caveat that you're being facetious, I'm motivated to post a couple of things.

First of all, the cause of the war wasn't slavery. The cause was the increasing economic clout of the South.

The North was perfectly happy to sell slaves to the South. Northerners, after all, were the owners of the slave boats. However, a point was reached at which the south didn't need to buy any more slaves, because their slaves were having children.

Furthermore, a growing Southern economy resulted in Europe beginning to divert its shipping to Southern ports. It was this increasing economic hit that caused the North to instigate war.

For those who will try to say that the North undertook the war for humanitarian reasons, I offer the following:

Non-resident blacks were forbidden to attend public schools in Connecticut because "... it would tend to the great increase of the colored people of the state."

William Lloyd Garrison, as cited in Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

New Jersey prohibited free blacks from settling in the state.

Massachusetts passed a law that allowed the flogging of blacks who came into the state and remained for longer than two months.

Indiana's constitution stated that "...no negro or mulatto shall come into or settle in the state..."

Illinois in 1853 enacted a law "...to prevent the immigration of free negroes into this state."

Oregon's 1857 constitution provided that "...No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the time of adoption [of the constitution of the state of Oregon] ... shall come,reside, or be within this state..."

Beverly B. Munford, Virginia's Attitude Toward Slavery and Succession

"But why should emancipation South send free people North? ... And in any event cannot the North decide for itself whether to receive them?"

Abraham Lincoln, in a message to Congress, December, 1862

State /Year Blacks Barred from Voting
New Jersey 1807
Connecticut 1814
Rhode Island 1822
Pennsylvania 1838

Edgar J. McManus, Black Bondage in the North
========================================================
It should be difficult to convince anyone that with laws like these on the books, Union soldiers were willing to fight and die for the freedom of blacks who were not allowed to reside in Northern states. However, there's a ton of revisionist history out there.

Even the Emancipation Proclamation only freed Southern slaves, NOT Northern ones. It even exempted from freedom those slaves in the areas of the South that were under Northern control. Read it if you don't believe me.

Looks like not much has changed--we still argue about the true reasons for going to war.

So you wouldn't have a problem if Bush waged war by stealing food from women and children, and then burned their houses? Oh, he instructed his general to burn the fields too, so they'd starve.

Nice guy, that Lincoln.

Now that's funny!

On a more serious note, I'm still amazed that there is not more indignation about Waco. Military weapons were used against US civilians, the Feds were proved to have lied, and around 90 people, including children, were killed.

Nobody even seems to care about any of that. All you ever hear about these days is the Patriot Act, a minor nuisance by comparison.

I guess since Clinton was so much more charismatic than Bush, he'll just get a free ride on that one.

I really don't think that that would happen today.

Money trumps boarders every time.

Business is one thing, politics is another.

Hell, there were lots of American companies who continued to do business with nazi Germany into 1943.

Secession isn't going to happen. Revolution isn't going to happen. Civil war isn't giong to happen. It won't bother me much at all if any of them do, though.

Living in a blue state that is mostly red (Illinois) the only part they get is Chicago, East St. Louis, and the Quad cities.

Heh the whole concept is stupid whining but its fun to see.

Hey Ustwo, I heard in my criminal justice class after election day that just about every county south of Cook county(Chicago) voted for Bush but since Chicago makes up over 55% percent of our state's population and is primarily democratic, Kerry won Illinois. Sad, isn't it?

Well there is East St. Louis, which is at its very best, a shit hole.

And there was one blue area south of cook, it might have been Campaign.

That was it though.

By state:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...temaplarge.png

By state, population weighted:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...ecartlarge.png

By county:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...tymaplarge.png

By country, population weighted:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...ountylarge.png

By county, percentage:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...olorslarge.png

By county, percentage, population weighted:

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi...olorslarge.png


Details here: http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/

Also of note -

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtm...T_GRAPHIC.html

OK, Ustwo and Bodyhammer86, Chicago is freakin awesome! Yeah. I mean, what else you got downstate? That nasty-ass sandwich with the fries and cholesterol in Springfield? Peoria? Please.

The only sad thing about Illinois is that, outside of Chicago, its suburbs, and a few select cities, its mostly boring, awful, corn-ridden fields of nothingness. Thank God for Chicago.

And nobody here is arguing that the sole cause of the Civil War was slavery, nor that the north wasn't racist, nor that Lincoln didn't express racist and pro-slavery views during his life (he did). But please, don't give me this war of northern aggression bullshit. The Civil War was fought over INCREASING southern economic ability? Bwahahahahaha. Yeah, OK, and there were WMDs in Iraq.

And I suppose reconstruction was ruined by those darn black legislators, too, huh?

Secession is an impossible, ridiculous notion....but damn, that map of the USC sure looks attractive.......

What about farm subsidy? Or corporate welfare? Let's cut those first. You must have missed the giver-taker map above. Ever wonder why a gallon of milk costs twice as much as a gallon of gasoline?

Whoa Manx! those maps are trippy! Can anyone explain to me the band of Kerry voters along the southern Mississippi? Is that Clinton country or something?

Personally, after the election, my first thought was to secede. (I live in LA). We are just going to take Arnold with us and to hell with the rest of the country. It's not going to happen. Its a ridiculous notion. but i wouldnt mind seeing it.

There's a quote about bushie-

THE INCOMPETENT TELLING THE UNWILLING TO DO THE UNNECESSARY.