No region is perfect, but the U.S. would be very far to the left without the South. There are liberal pockets in the South (Atlanta, New Orleans, etc.) but they generally get outvoted by the more conservative regions. The opposite usually occurs in the North and on the West Coast, where the conservative pockets get outvoted by the leftist areas.
Since the far left took over the Democrat Party in the late sixties, the Dems have only carried the South one time in a presidential election. That was Jimmy Carter in 1976, who ran as a conservative and I’ll concede that he fooled us. Clinton lost the South in both 1992 & 1996.
Not only does the South elect mostly conservatives, but its very presence as an important region keeps lefties in other regions from going even further. As nutty as Schumer, Obama, Hillary, Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, and others are, they’d be even kookier if the South was a seperate country. In such a scenario, the Heartland & Rocky Mountain states would be electorally crushed, and would live under the constant and permanent hegemony of the Northeast & West Coast.
Goodbye second amendment!
No region is perfect, but the U.S. would be very far to the left without the South.
The only reason the south seems to be more conservative is because it is more rural. There are few places more conservative than Indiana or Northern CA.
Anyway my point is that playing “what if” is foolish. The war is long over and neither of us nor anyone else alive today participated in it. It just strikes me funny as to why the civil war is still treated as a current event in the south. I really don’t get it.
BTW most of it took place within a hundred miles of where I live.
Actually...we can easily go deeper than that.
The North very well could have liberalized itself bankrupt as the former USSR and most liberal-sytled nations, and begged to join the South.
At which point both nations would have been much better off.