Jump to content

If the United States were to collapse


jurble

Recommended Posts

Okay, gonna take a crack at this. I'll be working through this in my head as I write this down, so I'll try not to be too stream of consciousness, but I think it will be fun:

A few basic assumptions first: Federal Government collapses in such a way that people no longer want such an apparatus in control of their lives. Lets say it's something along the lines of the fall of the Soviet Union, which is the only recent model to look at that makes any sense to me as a baseline. Bad economy is ultimately what did it in there, but also regional differences (i.e., each Republic really was a different country with its own culture and identity). I'm going to say the government collapses mostly peacefully for this discussion. There could have been some tense moments, like the attempted coup against Gorbachev, but let's pretend that just like in that situation, these things don't carry the day.

The Northeast/Greater New England/I-Ninety-Fiveia

Geography: I think New England would form a single entity quickly, probably along with New York and soon after New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania would join. In time, so to would Central Maryland, Washington D.C and Delaware. I'm not at all certain what would happen with the several Northern Virginia counties that are essentially just extensions of D.C. (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William). They might opt to join this new Union, as well as they have far more in common with DC and Central Maryland than the rest of Virginia. Small as these four counties are geographically, there are enough people, approaching 2 million, that they could become a new state (called Potomac?), or they could join with either DC and/or Maryland. Another, pretty far-flung region that could opt to join this Union is Southern Florida, which I think has more in common culturally with the North East due to so many transplants from the region than it does with other parts of that state, much less the rest of the South.

Capitol: Would likely remain in D.C., unless things were so bad that D.C. became a very negative symbol. If not D.C., then it would probably move to either Philadelphia, New York City or Boston. If D.C. remains the capital it would be given full statehood, so they'd get representation finally in the new Congress. If not, it's likely to become a part of Maryland.

Politics/Government: I think this region will model itself very much after the former USA. Very similar governmental structures and a carryover of most laws and forms. They'd probably write a Constitution 2.0, which would be based on our current one, but incorporate more directly the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment would not be totally lost (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Upstate New York would insist on this), but it would be clarified and it would give more leeway, somehow, for the big urban centers to more tightly control fire arms. Either that, or the individual states would be guaranteed the right to determine gun laws for themselves.

It's actually possible New Hampshire would not join this Union, at least not at first, and decide to try going it alone, but they would still be closely tied to I-Ninety-Fiveia as a close ally, or might maintain some sort of special semi-autonomous status.

As part of the deal, I think New York would have to get broken up into two or three smaller states: Long Island, Greater New York City (let's call it Hudson, and which would include Westchester, Putnam and maybe Rockland Counties all just north of the city), and Upstate New York. Otherwise New York would be just too big and powerful and lord over the other, smaller states in this Union.

The South/The New Confederacy/Dixie

Geography: To include most of the old Confederate States, plus the Maryland Eastern Shore (which would join Virginia, much as I like the idea of a new state called Chesapeake, there probably aren't enough people there). Southern counties from Ohio, Indiana and Illinois may also join, I really am not sure. Dixie would not include Southern Florida, the Potomac counties of Virginia, Texas and West Virginia (I know, those counties sided with the North anyway). It is possible some other Mid-West states like Oklahoma, Kansas and possibly parts of Missouri might join with Dixie, too.

Capitol: Richmond again? Atlanta? Or maybe they'd situate it more centrally in one of the Carolinas, like in Charlotte?

Politics/Government: They'd try something that goes back to Confederate ideals of a much weaker central government and more independence for the states. It seems to be that's what is popular even in the current time. I think, also, Dixie would officially be a Christian nation, though they would still enshrine religious freedoms in their Constitution. This would be a contentious issue for the South, with a lot of differences in views between the big cities like Atlanta and Richmond along with the major college regions like in N. Carolina, vs. the very Deep Southern areas and other more rural regions. Making Christianity the official religion, yet still observing total religious tolerance is actually the compromise, centrist position for Dixie, as I see it.

Allegheny/Appalachia:

Geography: Western Pennsylvania, Western Maryland (probably annexed to to W. PA), West Virginia, and most, if not all of Kentucky. There are even parts of western Virginia, which are very much like West Virginia that could join.

Capitol: Probably either Pittsburgh, Lexington or Louisville.

Politics/Government: It's all about coal and mineral wealth, as I see it. In this troubled time, the region - "the Saudi Arabia of coal" - would try to leverage that into greater wealth and economic advancement by selling to other areas who need this resource for energy. I see them becoming surprisingly socialist in a lot of ways, maybe even nationalizing the coal industry (taking it away from companies that often exist out of state and hence out of what is now Allegheney). Like Dixie, they'd be a very Christian region, maybe even officially Christian and the government would, perhaps not at first but eventually, become a new hybrid of something that could be called Christian Socialism (not sure how Pittsburghites will deal with this, but they generally won't like it.) . Economically, one of two things could happen, either it could become like Kuwait and the other smaller Persian Gulf States where the citizenry generally fair very well off the largess of the controlling government, who are flush enough with wealth that they can afford it, or they will be more like Saudi Arabia, where only the elite really benefit from the wealth and the vast majority of the working class remain in pretty bad economic conditions.

Rustbeltia/Great Lakes:

Geography: This one is actually pretty tough because of the differences, at least as I perceived them from traveling in the region, between various parts of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. I think all three states could easily break up along cultural lines, with the very rural parts going to Dixie, Heartland (see below) and/or Allegheny/Appalachia and the rest becoming a part of Rustbeltia. I'm not clear how places like Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Columbus will shake out, because they are basically very Northern Urban places totally surrounded by very Conservative rural areas. St. Louis, MO might be in the same situation. So the region consists of: urban Ohio, Indiana, Illinois (essentially greater Chicago), plus Michigan and Wisconsin. What of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan? Might join Wisconsin or might become its own state, probably called Huron (but maybe they'd call themselves "Michigan Superior," heh!).

Capitol: Chicago.

Politics/Government: I think everyone's too practical to let it devolve into factional Civil War here, but how to split things up will be contentious. The region could become a patchwork, with urban counties belonging to one union and rural to another. The region would be so economically tied because of this, either to Allegheny and/or Dixie, that there would be no travel and work restrictions. People would live in one nation and work in another, just over the county line. Like Greater New England, the government would greatly resemble that of the old U.S. I think this region could in time rejoin/join with Greater New England and/or Canada and if not would certainly remain very closely allied politically, as well as to the new nation of Pacifica (see below). The four countries would be a powerful bloc that would probably dominate the continent geopolitically.

The Mid-West/Heartland:

Geography: (I took the name Heartland from the 1980's mini-series "Amerika," where the Soviets take over the U.S. via a coup d'etat and proceed to Balkanize it into 5 or 6 smaller countries so that it can't rise again. The Mid-West region decides to call itself Heartland, which I think is a pretty great name.) Heartland includes much of the Mid-west: the Dakotas, Nebraska, Iowa, probably Kansas (which could opt for Dixie, instead), maybe Oklahoma, most of Missouri (but maybe not the St. Louis region, which could go to Rustbeltia), and very likely parts of Illinois, Wisconsin and maybe even bits of Minnesota (maybe). They may get parts of Wyoming, too.

Capitol: Omaha is likely, or possibly Des Moines (unless combined with Big Sky, then it will be Denver).

Politics/Government: Croplands are the main economic engine here. It will remain economically tied with the rest of the former US because it will still be providing much of their food supply. I suspect the central government will be weaker than that of the old USA, but not so weak as in Dixie, with about the same freedoms as we have now. Gun rights will be clarified and expanded a bit, religious freedom will remain the same even though Christianity is so dominant. I don't think people in this region like to be told what to do, and by the same token they don't like seeing others told what to do, even if those people have different beliefs than they do. That's my impression from my admittedly brief forays into the region.

Big Sky/Rockie Mountain Country:

Geography: Northern Idaho, Montana, most of Wyoming, Colorado. Possibly to also include some or all of New Mexico, who I doubt would want to be a part of Texas (certainly GRRM would vote against that).

Capitol: Denver. (I'm quite certain that Denver has long been built up by the US Government to be a replacement Capitol for the US should something happen to DC, probably due to nuclear attack. There are already so many big government institutions and major infrastructure there that it makes sense to locate a new Capitol city there.)

Politics/Government: It's entirely possible that this region will actually just form a much larger state along with what above was delineated as Heartland, as I don't think the two regions are that culturally distinct from each other to warrant a finer split. Colorado is fairly liberal now, probably the most liberal part of this region (unless New Mexico joins, which also has significant liberal regions), but I don't think this matters too much. I suspect the government would look a lot like the old U.S., though a bit less centralized maybe. Rights and freedoms will remain more or less the same, again with a clarification and expansion of gun rights. Religion, though important, will not be institutionalized in any way.

Texas/The Lone Star Republic

Geography: Texas, but they might try to grab Oklahoma by force or threat, just for the hell of it.

Capital: Austin

Politics/Government: Republic. Probably will make Protestant Christianity the official religion, though they may allow for Catholicism as well, since there are so many Hispanics there. Even if they start out religiously tolerant, I don't think they'd stay that way. Gun rights - almost unlimited. I really do fear that once set free of its moorings, Texas could - at least at first - get a rather nutty. They could easily antagonize all of their neighbors: Mexico, Dixie and Heartland, especially, and I'm really not kidding that they could try and make a move on a state like Oklahoma - Oklahoma City and Tulsa are not bad prizes. What will come of the Austinites stuck in the dead center of this place? I don't know. I think a lot will move to other regions of the country if they don't feel too rooted there. Without the rest of the country to tamp down the place's current instincts, the changes there might just be too much for most liberals living there, and in other areas of the new Lone Star Republic.

Deseret/Greater Utah/The Mormon Homeland

Geography: Deseret (not "desert" or "dessert") is what the original Mormon settlers wanted to call their homeland in what is now Utah. Modern Deseret will include Utah, as well as some of the heavily Mormonized sections of Idaho and Lincoln County, Wyoming where they are also a strong majority. There are some pretty large Mormon populations in Nevada and other nearby states, but no counties where they are a majority (though two in Nevada are close - yeah, I actually looked this stuff up).

Capitol: Salt Lake City

Politics/Government: Mormon Republic. I see this being a true republican theocracy, not entirely unlike the structure of the Iranian government, but probably with more freedom for non-believers - at least at first. Much like Iran, it may well be patterned after Plato's Republic, with the religious authority substituting for the "Philosopher Kings" of Plato's ideal. The elected government would defer to a Council of Church Elders who would, in some way, still hold paramount power, probably in the form of some sort of absolute veto over any laws passed. The President of this republic would be pretty weak, deferring also to the Church Elders, and possibly even in some way selected or at least approved by them. I think this state would actually probably function quite well economically. It's hard to say what will happen, once unmoored from the rest of the nation, in terms of religious tolerance and other freedoms. I'm inherently distrustful of theocratic states and I would no be at all surprised if, despite starting with the best of intentions and a lot of freedoms, the place did not slip into a kind of totalitarian religious state.

Pacifica/Greater California

Geography: California, Oregon, much, if not all of Nevada, probably Washington, too (parts of Eastern Washington may in fact join Big Sky and it's conceivable the rest could join Canada, instead of Pacifica). Hawaii could very likely also join if they don't go their own way. California would be broken up into two, three or even four states so that much like New York, it doesn't lord over the rest. These would be: 1) Northern California, 2) The Central Valley/Eastern part of the state, 3) Southern California and then SoCal may even be further sub-divided into two states, one centered around liberal Los Angeles, the other around 4) conservative San Diego.

Capitol: San Francisco (come on, it's too beautiful to not be their capitol)

Politics: More or less identical to the current US system structurally. Gun rights will be determined by each individual state, as the Pacific Northwest states will want to maintain them, but Northern and Southern California probably won't. Will be closely allied to Canada, Rustbeltia and Greater New England. Expect to see the most liberal freedoms of any of the new countries, as such things like prostitution and marijuana will be legalized probably throughout the whole country. The money generated from marijuana as a cash crop will probably go a long way to helping the troubled economy of the 2-4 former California states, especially if they sell to their allied states which probably will also eventually legalize weed (though Canada might not need any, they got the kindest bud of all).

Pueblo

Geography: Arizona, conservative parts of Nevada and New Mexico. Possibly also to join with Greater San Diego, if that splits from SoCal.

Capitol: Phoenix

Politics/Government: If current trends continue, isolationist tendencies towards non-whites, or at least non-citizens could lead to some pretty ugly mass deportations, certainly of illegal aliens. Depending on how things go, it could turn into some much uglier purely racial stuff between whites and hispanics. I see Pueblo being fairly tight with Texas, probably allied, though I think they'd treat Texas with kid-gloves. I could actually see there being open warfare at some point between Pueblo and Mexico, and Texas could even be a part of that as well, allied with Pueblo.

The Rest:

Alaska: Will try to go it alone, and probably will do fine for a while, buoyed by the oil revenue. I think with no greater US protection anymore, it could actually look like a tempting target for a resurgent Russia and they could actually make a play for Alaska. Most likely, any such moves would lead to Alaska joining with Canada for protection, and they'd become a Canadian province, or maybe a semi-autonomous territory, like Nunavut.

Puerto Rico: One of two options: either they'd become independent, or they'd join up with Greater New England/Southern Florida. Cultural ties with both regions are huge and it might work better for them economically than being totally independent.

Hawaii: As stated above, would either try to go it alone, hoping to rely on their tourism trade and agriculture to keep them going, or they would join with Pacifica. My bet is on the latter.

Minnesota: This is a hard one. It would not at all surprise me if Minnesota became a small, independent state, but with close trading and political ties with the other nearby nations. Being on their own, and so tied economically, I doubt much would change there and if anything it could be a boon for the state. They'd be like some free trade zone where Canada, Heartland, Big Sky and Rustbeltia could all meet. Alternately, they could just join Canada, or get split up between the various nearby nations.

The US Military: Interesting situation. Who gets what? Most of the nukes are in the mid-west, unless they are on the ships stationed on the coasts or out at sea and on air bases all over. The military itself is largely Southern and Midwestern, but there are people from all regions. Does anyone really want a nuclear Texas or Deseret? Could they even really stop them from having that or making new ones, considering how much is already there and how much of the technical knowhow is already in their possession?

I think the initial instinct will be for all the countries to contribute to an integrated North American defense, along with Canada and Mexico (much as it is today). However, this will pretty soon fall apart as Greater New England and Pacifica, which quite honestly pay for most of that military, will start pulling most of their funding. Culturally, they just don't support big militaries, even when there might be a lot of pork coming to states like Maryland, the Californias and such because of so many bases and installations there. I think the hardware will get divided up in the end, but none of the poorer nations will be able to maintain a strong military without funding from the wealthier nations, and the wealthier nations don't seem to be militaristic by nature so will only maintain small, but probably well maintained defense forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, interesting read, but it strikes me as overall a bit based on rather dated, or possibly primitive, notions of the role of regionality in geography and economics. USA today isn't a risk board, and its not even the USSR of 1990. The cultural divides are urban-rural more than regional, no developed economy is really based on any dominant branch (or rather, they're all based on services), much of the basic economic activity of a city like NYC or LA is tied to other cities like NY or LA and couldn't care less if its in the USA or ifs on the moon so long as theres skype, the appalachians couldn't simultaneous be 'socialist' and leverage resource wealth into gulf like proportion becuase the gulf arabs are wealthy the same way plantation owners were wealthy - theyre a small percentage of the population, the one thing new york isn't going to do is break itself up to voluntarily become less powerful, etc.

I'm not trying to nitpick (well, I am), because I enjoy this kind of game, but I think that we need a closer consideration here. A succesful, prosperous state, we can obviously see from a whole set of collapsed empires and decolonized countries and various new ones, is more than resources+people: what about infrastructure? concentrations of capital? possibilities for investment? labour costs? economic diversity? migration possibilities? export/import ratio? interaction with a globalized market? the way those things will break up across the USA will do more to determine the shape of life of any of these new countries than any cultural/ecological qualities, which are not without influence, but are minor, especially in the very short term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With "tamed" and "frenchified", I meant to say that they didn't do that Viking stuff anymore. They also changed their language and battle tactics for example. True, they were not exactly mainstream French, but IMHO closer to them than to their ancestors.

A claim to the English throne was an uncertain thing, btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With "tamed" and "frenchified", I meant to say that they didn't do that Viking stuff anymore. They also changed their language and battle tactics for example. True, they were not exactly mainstream French, but IMHO closer to them than to their ancestors.

A claim to the English throne was an uncertain thing, btw.

But they DID do "That viking stuff" What do you think 1066 WAS?

Just like the danish kings didn't stop doing "The viking thing", they just painted a cross on their shields and called themselves crusaders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How so? Does the foreign ancestry of the majority of Americans put in question their "American-ness"? Does my Irish great-grandfather put in question my "English-ness"?

I don't see how that's relevant. I was responding to a claim that prior to the Norman invasion the Normans were 'Frenchified', but there wasn't much to 'Frenchify' given that few people referred to themselves as singularly French. The Normans at the time spoke Norman French and had a distinct ethnic identity which lasted for centuries afterward. You're referring to a nationalist sentiment that simply did not exist back in 1066.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, gonna take a crack at this. I'll be working through this in my head as I write this down, so I'll try not to be too stream of consciousness, but I think it will be fun:

Allegheny/Appalachia:

Geography: Western Pennsylvania, Western Maryland (probably annexed to to W. PA), West Virginia, and most, if not all of Kentucky. There are even parts of western Virginia, which are very much like West Virginia that could join.

Capitol: Probably either Pittsburgh, Lexington or Louisville.

Politics/Government: It's all about coal and mineral wealth, as I see it. In this troubled time, the region - "the Saudi Arabia of coal" - would try to leverage that into greater wealth and economic advancement by selling to other areas who need this resource for energy. I see them becoming surprisingly socialist in a lot of ways, maybe even nationalizing the coal industry (taking it away from companies that often exist out of state and hence out of what is now Allegheney). Like Dixie, they'd be a very Christian region, maybe even officially Christian and the government would, perhaps not at first but eventually, become a new hybrid of something that could be called Christian Socialism (not sure how Pittsburghites will deal with this, but they generally won't like it.) . Economically, one of two things could happen, either it could become like Kuwait and the other smaller Persian Gulf States where the citizenry generally fair very well off the largess of the controlling government, who are flush enough with wealth that they can afford it, or they will be more like Saudi Arabia, where only the elite really benefit from the wealth and the vast majority of the working class remain in pretty bad economic conditions.

Bold mine. Hell, no, we won't like it at all...but Obama had it right when he said that Pennsylvanians cling to their guns and their religion. Outside of Philly, the Burgh, Erie, and maybe Scranton and Wilkes Barre, we're as religiously conservative as they come. (I was going to say "redneck", but I don't want to offend anyone.) Pittsburgh is mostly Catholic, too, (70+ %) so it doesn't exactly fit in with the evangelical Protestantism of the rest of your proposed state (which matched mine, by the way).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, gonna take a crack at this. I'll be working through this in my head as I write this down, so I'll try not to be too stream of consciousness, but I think it will be fun:

A few basic assumptions first: Federal Government collapses in such a way that people no longer want such an apparatus in control of their lives. Lets say it's something along the lines of the fall of the Soviet Union, which is the only recent model to look at that makes any sense to me as a baseline. Bad economy is ultimately what did it in there, but also regional differences (i.e., each Republic really was a different country with its own culture and identity). I'm going to say the government collapses mostly peacefully for this discussion. There could have been some tense moments, like the attempted coup against Gorbachev, but let's pretend that just like in that situation, these things don't carry the day.

[...]

I think these are really interesting scenarios to ponder, though I wonder what the effect of such a breakup would be on Canada and Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold mine. Hell, no, we won't like it at all...but Obama had it right when he said that Pennsylvanians cling to their guns and their religion. Outside of Philly, the Burgh, Erie, and maybe Scranton and Wilkes Barre, we're as religiously conservative as they come. (I was going to say "redneck", but I don't want to offend anyone.) Pittsburgh is mostly Catholic, too, (70+ %) so it doesn't exactly fit in with the evangelical Protestantism of the rest of your proposed state (which matched mine, by the way).

In my experience the northern parts of West Virginia aren't all that religious either. Sure that element exists but it is no way as in-your-face as I've seen it in some places in the South. I mean there's at least 20 places in Morgantown alone that would curl the hair of any God-fearin' man. :lol: Can't really speak for the southern parts of the state though.

Brude is right about Virginia. I lived in Virginia for a long time and for the most part I really loved the southern parts of the state and up through the Shenandoah Valley. That is what I think of when I think of Virginia. Having lived in DC for the past few years, and even Arlington for a bit, I have a hard time thinking of northern Virginia as, well, Virginia. Its very different from the rest of the state, which is culturally southern and mostly rural or small towns/cities. Even Richmond isn't very big. I consider Virginia Beach an anomaly, beach kids are beach kids everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the effect of such a breakup would be on Canada and Mexico.

I actually didn't ponder that, but odds are if the U.S. somehow goes down in a big way economically, it's going to take a lot of the world with it. The US isn't in a vacuum that way. Canada and the US are so intertwined economically I wonder if they really even count as two nations in that respect. Mexico is also a huge trading partner and probably much more vulnerable to problems in the U.S. than is Canada because their economy starts off so weak - then again, maybe they don't have as far to fall so they'd be able to deal with it better.

I don't know, I'm no economist, but these are just the feelings I have about it as I think about it now.

I mean there's at least 20 places in Morgantown alone that would curl the hair of any God-fearin' man.

A college town's a college town and they are catering to kids from from all over the country there - big, big school.

Brude is right about Virginia. I lived in Virginia for a long time and for the most part I really loved the southern parts of the state and up through the Shenandoah Valley. That is what I think of when I think of Virginia. Having lived in DC for the past few years, and even Arlington for a bit, I have a hard time thinking of northern Virginia as, well, Virginia. Its very different from the rest of the state, which is culturally southern and mostly rural or small towns/cities. Even Richmond isn't very big.

I grew up in Baltimore, so I know Virginia reasonably well and why I know how Maryland would shake out - there's 3 distinct cultures in Maryland - Appalachia in the panhandle, North Eastern in the central region and VERY Southern on the Eastern Shore (or in the case of Baltimore, depending on what neighborhood you are in, you get either North Eastern or Southern).

Is Richmond that small? I've honestly only driven past it, but done so dozens of times. Definitely nothing like DC or Baltimore, but the downtown seemed reasonably built up, at least...it does go by pretty fast on the highway, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, interesting read, but it strikes me as overall a bit based on rather dated, or possibly primitive, notions of the role of regionality in geography and economics. USA today isn't a risk board, and its not even the USSR of 1990. The cultural divides are urban-rural more than regional, no developed economy is really based on any dominant branch (or rather, they're all based on services), much of the basic economic activity of a city like NYC or LA is tied to other cities like NY or LA and couldn't care less if its in the USA or ifs on the moon so long as theres skype, the appalachians couldn't simultaneous be 'socialist' and leverage resource wealth into gulf like proportion becuase the gulf arabs are wealthy the same way plantation owners were wealthy - theyre a small percentage of the population, the one thing new york isn't going to do is break itself up to voluntarily become less powerful, etc.

I did try to take a lot of those things into consideration to a degree, on top of just trying to have fun with it and come up with fun names for the new countries. But, I do understand how the divide is more urban vs. rural, but even to that there are degrees of it. Also, I do think that should the country some how start splitting up, with parts going it alone, you'd have one dominant culture or another swamping the minority views in various regions. Upstate NY is rural and nominally Conservative, but I will tell you now, a lot of "conservative" upstate Republicans are closer to liberal than some "moderate" Democrats in parts of the South and Mid-West. The rural/urban divide that exists there is not nearly so strong as the regional divide between Northeast and South, at least not in my observations. Likewise, get out into the rural parts of central Maryland and people are still liberals, mostly.

Still, there are regions were it is pronounced, like in those rust belt states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois - the farm country is VERY conservative and the big cities (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago) seem to be VERY liberal. When I drive through rural New York or rural Maryland, I feel pretty at home. When I drove through rural Illinois, I felt like I was on another planet - it was a very alien feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grew up in Baltimore, so I know Virginia reasonably well and why I know how Maryland would shake out - there's 3 distinct cultures in Maryland - Appalachia in the panhandle, North Eastern in the central region and VERY Southern on the Eastern Shore (or in the case of Baltimore, depending on what neighborhood you are in, you get either North Eastern or Southern).

Is Richmond that small? I've honestly only driven past it, but done so dozens of times. Definitely nothing like DC or Baltimore, but the downtown seemed reasonably built up, at least...it does go by pretty fast on the highway, though.

Wiki says Richmond is about 200,000 with over a million in the metro area. I suppose that's a decent sized city, but not on the scale of DC or Baltimore.

Richmond is kind of neat actually. One of my best friends now lives there and I've been there many times over the years to visit other Richmond based friends. They have an area called 'the fan' which is a huge old city neighborhood with rowhouses and the like that reminds me a lot of Baltimore or DC. The culture of Richmond is interesting, it draws a lot of artsy types, I'm guessing because of Virginia Commonwealth University. But yea the urban part of Richmond is pretty concentrated and it quickly turns into suburbia and then from suburbia to rural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that people are more tied to their states, or to ideological groups? That is, if the US started to collapse, would we see people joining together with their communities and their near neighbors to rebuild a local government? Or would we see people leaving their homes to join with a group that was forming a new settlement with a pre-specified system of government?

I think that answer would depend a lot on whether people still had internet access and mobility. It seems that in most places, many people don't know their neighbors and aren't part of large community organizations (excepting churches, but I'll get to that in a moment). With internet access, a lot of those people might be swayed by promises of a new community in a new location. Even people who aren't internet or social network savvy would be more likely to hear about these new communities if other people had internet access. It's hard to say without the situation actually happening whether people would cling to their physical location or not. Many people would try to regroup with family in other towns, no doubt.

Churches would be a natural place for many people to regroup in America. However, it's the most conservative, evangelical groups that seem like they'd be the most likely to be willing to relocate and join together. Almost certainly somewhere there would be a totally Christian conclave where members of other states would leave their homes to join this group. If this were combined with the ability of internet community advertisements, there'd probably be a good number of crazy fringe groups of all varieties trying to form their own states. Who knows how this would play out. Many groups would realize that they couldn't survive without compromising with larger, more diverse communities, but some could cause real trouble. It would be hard for new governments to lock down on these groups, and probably not worth the effort to dig out survivalist types who'd holed up with a shotgun and a garden.

But so you guys? Would you stay in your own state and town for as long as possible to promote community leadership? Or if you found out about a new government starting in another state that matched your politics, would you start walking that way? My community is probably well matched to my ideals - but I chose to move where I did. If I were still in Southwest Virginia, I'd be packing right now. If Brude's predictions are at all valid, I don't want to be choosing between Dixie and Appalachia (if I had to, I'd choose Appalachia, actually, and I think that Blacksburg, Floyd, and all the counties across to West Virginia would as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Northeast/Greater New England/I-Ninety-Fiveia

Geography: I think New England would form a single entity quickly, probably along with New York and soon after New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania would join. In time, so to would Central Maryland, Washington D.C and Delaware. I'm not at all certain what would happen with the several Northern Virginia counties that are essentially just extensions of D.C. (Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun and Prince William). They might opt to join this new Union, as well as they have far more in common with DC and Central Maryland than the rest of Virginia. Small as these four counties are geographically, there are enough people, approaching 2 million, that they could become a new state (called Potomac?), or they could join with either DC and/or Maryland. Another, pretty far-flung region that could opt to join this Union is Southern Florida, which I think has more in common culturally with the North East due to so many transplants from the region than it does with other parts of that state, much less the rest of the South.

Capitol: Would likely remain in D.C., unless things were so bad that D.C. became a very negative symbol. If not D.C., then it would probably move to either Philadelphia, New York City or Boston. If D.C. remains the capital it would be given full statehood, so they'd get representation finally in the new Congress. If not, it's likely to become a part of Maryland.

Politics/Government: I think this region will model itself very much after the former USA. Very similar governmental structures and a carryover of most laws and forms. They'd probably write a Constitution 2.0, which would be based on our current one, but incorporate more directly the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment would not be totally lost (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Upstate New York would insist on this), but it would be clarified and it would give more leeway, somehow, for the big urban centers to more tightly control fire arms. Either that, or the individual states would be guaranteed the right to determine gun laws for themselves.

Sigh. Brudewollen, why must you tempt me?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But so you guys? Would you stay in your own state and town for as long as possible to promote community leadership?

No, as a person of color, I'd escape to NYC or Philly for safety in numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually didn't ponder that, but odds are if the U.S. somehow goes down in a big way economically, it's going to take a lot of the world with it. The US isn't in a vacuum that way. Canada and the US are so intertwined economically I wonder if they really even count as two nations in that respect. Mexico is also a huge trading partner and probably much more vulnerable to problems in the U.S. than is Canada because their economy starts off so weak - then again, maybe they don't have as far to fall so they'd be able to deal with it better.

I don't know, I'm no economist, but these are just the feelings I have about it as I think about it now.

Don't give the economists too much credit - they tend to be positively Marxist in their emphasis on the importance of trade links and economic structure as determining political culture. Other countries are just as closely intertwined with more institutional similarities - Germany and Austria for example. There would absolutely be some kind of ripple effect north and south of the border if the US as we know it collapsed.

Eponine,

Do you think that people are more tied to their states, or to ideological groups? That is, if the US started to collapse, would we see people joining together with their communities and their near neighbors to rebuild a local government? Or would we see people leaving their homes to join with a group that was forming a new settlement with a pre-specified system of government?

Very interesting question. I'd say it'd be both to some extent. Region/province is very important in Canada, except perhaps in Ontario where there's little to no sense of provincial identity (IMHO). Some western provinces like Alberta have distinct political cultures within the country, but apart from a few "western" trappings (e.g. the Calgary Stampede), I don't know that there are any strong cultural (as opposed to political) regional identities at the level of provinces outside the Maritimes and Newfoundland (and Quebec of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that people are more tied to their states, or to ideological groups? That is, if the US started to collapse, would we see people joining together with their communities and their near neighbors to rebuild a local government? Or would we see people leaving their homes to join with a group that was forming a new settlement with a pre-specified system of government?

I'll tell you right now, I am one of millions of Michiganders, who will unite in a highly complex strike to bring this nation under our liege... should this nation collapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will disagree with BD about CA. A lot of their current economy comes from defence contract.

Two things about this.

1. Why would defense contracting necessarily stall? There are other countries that want it, not the least the new California.

2. A great deal of our financial difficulties are from disproportionately feeding the federal monster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still, there are regions were it is pronounced, like in those rust belt states of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois - the farm country is VERY conservative and the big cities (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Chicago) seem to be VERY liberal. When I drive through rural New York or rural Maryland, I feel pretty at home. When I drove through rural Illinois, I felt like I was on another planet - it was a very alien feeling.

I dont want to discount the depth of cultural difference in the US, since you're certain to know better than me...but differing opinions on gun laws and gay marriage are not the kind of things that rip countries apart. From my perspective, the US is relatively homogenous, culturally and ideologically. There are differences, and there are pockets, (mormons certainly stand out), but the kind of thing you're talking about here...thats going to include population exchanges, ethnic cleansing, war, terrorism, massacres. I think Eponine hit it on the head - do you expect to see streams of refugees, all the liberals of Atlanta fleeing north, the religeous of California in an exodous across the desert to the god-tolerant regions eastaward? (honestly, I don't know. Maybe.)

Given your premise - a collapse, delgitimization and loss of legitimacy of the central government, but not a decades long war or zombie apocalypse. That is, maybe theres hyper inflation or loss of public services for a bit, but everyone still has their office or their factory to go to in the morning, i'll make two, maybe really boring predictions:

1. The states will break up exactly along state lines.

When the central governemt goes the well developed local authorities will start declaring independece: states. Governors, state parliaments, police forces, law codes, education, etc - all the infrastructure is in place and its shaped by the states. A few here and there might decide to go at it together, but I doubt it - whats likelier is eventual supernational organizations, and they will go at it due to shared economic interests and complimenting industries, not becuase they feel like they have a lot in common. The one things I am totally willing to bet on is that no state will peaceably break up: South Florida is not going to join New York just becuase it kinda feels like thats more their cup of tea, and more importantly the rest of Florida is definitely NOT going to sit and take that. No coutry anywhere has ever just given up chunks of itself.

2. The differences that will emerge will own more to economic gaps than cultural ones.

Comparing to the USSR of 1990, the US is ridiculously homogenous. The differences between the way of life in the most remote Alabama trailer park and the most cosmopolitan block of San Fransisco is, by global standards, pretty minor. Nowhere in the US is there a significant population of nomads, or people without a monetary economy, subsistance farmers, people who's single most important source of identity and authority is an extended kin network. There isn't wide spread illiteracy, or places where not 1 person of 3 but one of a hundred has higher education, or TFRs of 2 vs of 6 or acerage income thats a tenth of some other place.

The differences you're talking about aren't really cultural...they're ideological, and that ideology has not reached the point where its going to boil over and start influencing geography. (Lets see how belgium goes as a case study though). Yeah, an independent Massachussets is going to be more liberal than an independent Nebraska, but what will really define the shape of life in those countires is going to be their economic prospects. If a crisis collapses Mass' economy, it could turn into a totalitarian dictatorship, and if theres a crazy er, corn? wheat? blight in Nebraska it might turn theocratical, but failing that, both could turn out to be pretty similar countries with a slgihtly different educational curriculum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience the northern parts of West Virginia aren't all that religious either. Sure that element exists but it is no way as in-your-face as I've seen it in some places in the South. I mean there's at least 20 places in Morgantown alone that would curl the hair of any God-fearin' man. :lol: Can't really speak for the southern parts of the state though.

That's because northern West Virginia is southern Pittsburgh. :) It's only 75 miles away and some people consider Monongalia and Preston counties as part of Pittsburgh's metro area.

West Virginia is kind of funny. The northern part and the southern part are like two different worlds.

Morgantown is a college town--the #1 party school in the country. At least, it used to be. Back in the Stone Age when WV's drinking age was 18, we used to road trip down there just to get into the bars. It's only a little over an hour away. And it's not just West Virginians that go there. :) Many of my co-workers are WVU grads. Outside of Pitt and Penn State, western PA'ers go to WVU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...