Replies

Without the South, the US would be more liberal....CULTURALLY. But I maintain that the rest of the US would be more prosperous and more free market and less socialist than it is today. Why is that? I submit to you all that Southern states as well as certain Western agriculutural states get more funding per capita from the Feds than any other region in the US and pay less taxes to the Federal government per capita than any other region, especially the blue states of New York and California (although the business flight from CA may change that). In fact the South benefits disproportianately from New Deal and Great Society Programs like TVA and Medicaid since it has a higher poverty rate. Also massive government subsidies due to Southern control of Congressional and Senatorial committees means a channeling of much non residtributive government spending to these areas. Therefore current southern prosperity is more due to government spending and socialism-lite than anything else. Without a South, socialism would have never gone national. The Solid South of the old days and the big cities of the North had one thing in common....political patronage, corruption and machines. That is the heart of big government and the civil service. It was this coalition that pur Roosevelt in office and sponsored the New Deal and the Great Society. Without a South, rural voters and city reformers would have gradually taken control of the North at the expense of political machines, much like what has happened since and the north would be a libertarian paradise more or less. Socially very liberal but conservative on economics. Essentially classical liberalism, which is this nation's true political heritage.

Without changing the movement of peoples due to a united country (and other history) that could be. I think saying it'd be a model for liberatarianism might be a little stretch though. It seems people naturally drift toward socialism when they have success (maybe not all the way to socialism, but they drift there at least some) and forget the values that got them the success in the first place.

I take issue with you on you slightly on that last point. Growing prosperity may lead to socialism in nations wracked by class divisions, as people begin arguing that their slice of the pie is not big enough. However the US does not really fall into this category due tothe nations liberal traditions and at least official condemnation of class thinking. There is a difference between sharing the wealth and alleviating poverty and socialism. The early middle and upper middle class urban reformers who took on the machines tended to be very pro business but also compassionate to the poor. I guess that could make them slightly socialist, but liberal republicanism of people like Henry Luce and Thomas Dewey was a far cry from the Great Society liberalism of Lyndon Johnson.