That's an indication of where the modern world is headed. Out of the way rural areas aren't much affected. If you want to form your own country and develop it into an economic powerhouse, those changes will transform your culture and society. Examples are Ireland, Quebec, the American South today, and the United States itself. Wealthy countries form their own elites, and those elites look for things to do. I suppose a new country could resist becoming wealthy and an elite could cut itself off from the world and move in the opposite direction, but those aren't necessarily better options.
The vast majority of the populace out of the South was not Planters.
The planter class was crushed by the war. Had the war not happened, they would have been ruling for a long time. This would not have been acceptable to the midwestern states. Take the time if you have it to look up what South Carolina politics were like before the Civil War. That is not something that would be appealing to any people with free and democratic traditions.
I am referring to what would have happened in the absence of a war. The Southern population would not have been destitute and would have had similar incomes and concerns as the rural Northern populations, and they would have grown together in absence of war.
You apparently still think that the 2004 election was the template for all American politics. But it took time for the Southern and Plains states to come together politically. The South had to get rid of slavery and segregation. The planter elites had to be displaced. Corporations and industry had to move in. Air conditioning had to be developed and made common.
The Germans and Scandinavians of the Plains had to become assimilated and lose their European ways. Southerners a century and a half ago didn't much love the Germans. Neoconfederates today are forever maligning them as early socialists, wrongly but not entirely without reason. All that would have to change, and as recently as half-century ago, the Upper Plains were more Mondale, McGovern, and Humphrey than anything else.
Oh absolutely. It is in the nature of man to resent and envy wealth. However, the wealth of New Orleans would have also been commensurate with an increase of wealth of these farmers because their dollars would go further without the protectionism instituted to protect the Northeastern manufacturers.
Tariffs weren't the big determining factor that you believe they were. Moreover, tariffs only went up as high as they did because of the necessity of paying for the war. And they only stayed up as high as they did because the Democrats had become identified as the party of rebellion. American politics is a dynamic system, and barring some catastrophic event -- the Civil War, the Great Depression -- the two parties tend towards equilibrium. Had their been no war, the two parties would have competed on more even terms and protectionism would have been less of a reality and less of an issue. If farmers were discontented, they would work within the political system to redress their grievances, something Southern planters didn't want to do.
They had the opportunity to do so for half a century, and yet they did not. Therefore they would not.
There were only 13 years between the Mexican Cession and the Civil War. Arizona and New Mexico were sparsely settled in those days and wouldn't become states for another fifty years. Forms of slavery had been around in the area for centuries, and given a pro-slavery national government, slavery would have continued and been expanded.
A border is just a meaningless line. (as we are now seeing with our own southern border.) It won't keep people out, only proactive measures will do that.
What we are seeing now is a special case. Most of the time active measures are taken to secure borders and control border traffic. Most of the time, borders more or less work if you want them to. But you don't really answer my point here, which is that if Northerners had no great love for African-Americans, they would appreciate a national border keeping them out.
Of course, it's pointless to argue about counterfactual history. We will never know what would have happened if things had happened differently. There are too many factors involved to be able to say anything with any certainty. Given the complexity, I don't see how anyone can have the confidence in their own predictions that you have.
I think this is absolutely correct. Prosperity begats Liberalism.
The planter class was crushed by the war. Had the war not happened, they would have been ruling for a long time. This would not have been acceptable to the midwestern states. Take the time if you have it to look up what South Carolina politics were like before the Civil War. That is not something that would be appealing to any people with free and democratic traditions.
I have said more than once that the Southern Aristocracy were @$$holes, and that I would likely have hated them had they become dominant, as much as I currently do the New York/ Washington DC Aristocracy.
You apparently still think that the 2004 election was the template for all American politics.
I think the map of the 2004 election illustrates the likely societal and political changes that would have occurred with the CSA continuing to exist. I think that all those states have more in common with each other than they do with the New York Aristocracy, and they would have eventually formed a political coalition together.
But it took time for the Southern and Plains states to come together politically. The South had to get rid of slavery and segregation.
I see that as all inevitable.
The Germans and Scandinavians of the Plains had to become assimilated and lose their European ways. Southerners a century and a half ago didn't much love the Germans. Neoconfederates today are forever maligning them as early socialists, wrongly but not entirely without reason. All that would have to change, and as recently as half-century ago, the Upper Plains were more Mondale, McGovern, and Humphrey than anything else.
Yes, the Germans and Scandinavians do have too much fondness for socialism, but this I think is the consequence of their homogeneous background. "Socialism" appears to me to be adopting the ideas of a family unit onto a larger scale, and it is more workable and less objectionable among groups that share the same genetic background because it's basically an extension of a "family".
Germans and Scandinavians also seem to have a fondness for authoritarianism too, and that has been another difficulty with integrating them into the American mindset. But all that slowly evolves in line with the social environment in which they find themselves.
Tariffs weren't the big determining factor that you believe they were.
"Tariffs" are an imprecise term for the larger effects of economic changes which would have occurred from secession. "Tariffs" are misleading in this context because the changes from secession go way beyond tariffs. It's just become popular to encapsulate all these ideas under the title of "tariffs", but it is very misleading.
Moreover, tariffs only went up as high as they did because of the necessity of paying for the war. And they only stayed up as high as they did because the Democrats had become identified as the party of rebellion.
Ha! Pull the other one! It is inherent in the history of government that once they get a tax, it becomes nearly impossible to take it away from them again. When you are exercising great power and influence by taxing some to spend on others, your power is diminished if taxation is diminished.
If farmers were discontented, they would work within the political system to redress their grievances, something Southern planters didn't want to do.
Hardly. They would try to go around the system. See "Grainger movement."
Forms of slavery had been around in the area for centuries, and given a pro-slavery national government, slavery would have continued and been expanded.
Doing what? What would pay the slave owner more than cotton?
Given the complexity, I don't see how anyone can have the confidence in their own predictions that you have.
I have great confidence in predicting that people will gravitate towards money and self interest. I believe this is inherent in human nature.