What possible reason would Idaho or Montana have to join up with the Confederacy? Economically and culturally, they would have greater ties with Washington state and Oregon, or with the Plains and Great Lakes states than with the more humid far away cotton and tobacco growing states. And if they really hated Blacks as much as you say, wasn't that one more reason not to throw in with the slaveowner's empire?
The 2004 electoral map that you keep posting and reposting robotically is a product of a "cultural war" that didn't get started until the 1960s or 1970s and didn't take its present form until the 1990s. What happened was urban coastal states became affluent, secular, "progressive," and post-industrial in way that they weren't before, and this created a divide between them and the inland industrial or agricultural states which were more religious and more conservative.
Anytime up to about 50 years ago that divide didn't exist. When most people in Washington state were wheat farmers, fruit growers or fishermen, and most Oregonians were ranchers, woodcutters or farmers, and most Vermonters worked on dairy farms or granite quarries, there wasn't any great economic or cultural divide separating them from people who live in Idaho or Montana or Wisconsin. So they wouldn't feel any great attraction to South Carolina or Alabama or Mississippi.
What else happened 50 or 60 years ago? The end of segregation. The closing of the economic and cultural gaps that separated the South from other parts of the country. And in the last 20 years or so the Democrats stopped nominating Southerners for national office. That's what made your 2004 map. It's not an expression of some eternal hatred that people in the Mountain and Plains states have for the coasts (or vice versa) or some deep affinity that they have with the Southern states (or vice versa). It's a product of political changes that happened in recent times.
And if the South did become independent and did become the economic power house that you've always claimed it would be, why would Westerners want to submit to Southern rule? I think they'd sooner throw in with Canada or create their own country in the West or Northwest, rather than knuckle under to the Confederacy. Think about it, you live and breathe resentment every day. Why wouldn't people living two or three thousand miles away truly resent Charleston or New Orleans if it became the new economic capital of the continent?
But of course, rational argument won't convince you of anything. If David Hogg and Dylan Roof could somehow have a child, that would be you.
What possible reason would Idaho or Montana have to join up with the Confederacy? Res ipsa loquitur.
The 2004 electoral map that you keep posting and reposting robotically is a product of a "cultural war" that didn't get started until the 1960s or 1970s and didn't take its present form until the 1990s.
Here you are partially right. I think this culture war has been going on at least since the English Civil War, regarding which many people suggest the US Civil War was just a later iteration. (Red Necks refer to Presbyterians who wore red collars)
rather than knuckle under to the Confederacy.
In what manner would they be expected to "knuckle under" to the Confederacy? It incorporated by design far more Federalism than did the Northern Union. It had less power to bother people. Power was less strongly concentrated.
They are "knuckling under" with the current system, which is far more intrusive than the Southern Confederacy would have been. It would have secured connections with economic ties. People would have been part of it because their economic interests would have been better served by it, and because culturally they would have been more like the people of the South, than those of Urban concentrations in the North.