Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

So, what could a post-USA North America look like?

Cloo

Approved by toads
OK, kinda serious and kinda not serious here, but I am intrigued by this. My other half reckons we're in the final century of the United States of America - maybe not in our lifetime, but there is going to be a schism that breaks the USA. It certainly seems like one can see the faultlines.

Could the USA split into the coasts and a central/southern country? Left of centre types and everyone who isn't white who can get out of the latter running to the coastal cities? A theocratic, anti-abortion, anti women and racist centre with all the space but less of the brainpower and technology?

Let your dystopian ideas run free here... one way or another, it wouldn't be pretty.
 
Could the USA split into the coasts and a central/southern country? Left of centre types and everyone who isn't white who can get out of the latter running to the coastal cities? A theocratic, anti-abortion, anti women and racist centre with all the space but less of the brainpower and technology?

it would be more mottled than that. new hampshire is pretty rightwingy; north carolina, with which i have some familiarity, is far more liberal on a local level than you'd think from reading the headlines. new mexico is very ethnically mixed and solidly democratic and is among the most gunned-up states in the union, i think. this list has names from all over the place, for as much stock as you want to put in it: 22 Small LGBTQ-Friendly Cities in the U.S. - Vacationer Magazine . and the vile MTG's state has one black senator and one jewish senator, both democrats.

the places that really do seem to be heading towards dystopia are MO and TN.

frankly i have no issue with the idea of a national divorce, just wait until that sweet california and new york money they get passed to them through the federal government stops.
 
why do you single out these two states specifically? more info please, curious

as to TN there is the recent unpleasantness that goes with having a supermajority (= veto-proof majority in the legislature). remember, this was carried out by the same people who exculpated the Jan. 6th rioters.

as to MO i've read alot of stuff and it's all consistent that throughout the state there is a threatening rightwing atmosphere and has been for quite a while. there is no one incident i can point to as in TN.

people talk about TX but it's big and has lefty sections in it and a history of liberal populism and it may survive.
 
Aren’t a lot of the SW states lightly to go democrat in 2024 / 2028?

My friend in Florida tells me the further north you go in that state the more southern it becomes. Worry for her a lot when I hear of shootings as she’s a high school headteacher.
 
frankly i have no issue with the idea of a national divorce, just wait until that sweet california and new york money they get passed to them through the federal government stops.

That California money could well dry up well before any national divorce happens, but I’d defer to you re: NYC.

How many USA’s do you see resulting from this (the traditional answer seems to be two, but I expect the picture is more complex).
 
That hasn’t come out too legible.
qx0q79q0ura31.jpg
 
I have often wondered what would have happened if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, and been allowed to leave the Union. I know that racist reconstructionists say that the war was about states' rights, not slavery, which is disingenuous bullshit -- the right that they felt was in danger was their right to keep slaves. However, the actual principle that the states that decided to come together to form the US should have the right to leave it seemed compelling to me at the time, and still does.

Writers who have used this idea for alternative history novels generally posit a world with two countries where one had been -- or at least I assume that's what most of them do, as it isn't something I've explored in depth. But it might have meant more countries, once the precedent had been set. And the world would have been a very different place.

But in terms of actually happening now, I can't see it. The question of whether states can secede was settled long ago, and it's hardly likely to happen in the foreseeable future, however one might be seduced by the idea.
 
I have often wondered what would have happened if the South hadn't fired on Fort Sumter, and been allowed to leave the Union. I know that racist reconstructionists say that the war was about states' rights, not slavery, which is disingenuous bullshit -- the right that they felt was in danger was their right to keep slaves. However, the actual principle that the states that decided to come together to form the US should have the right to leave it seemed compelling to me at the time, and still does.

Writers who have used this idea for alternative history novels generally posit a world with two countries where one had been -- or at least I assume that's what most of them do, as it isn't something I've explored in depth. But it might have meant more countries, once the precedent had been set. And the world would have been a very different place.

But in terms of actually happening now, I can't see it. The question of whether states can secede was settled long ago, and it's hardly likely to happen in the foreseeable future, however one might be seduced by the idea.
Maybe you could explain what you mean by reconstructionists as it doesn't seem a term naturally going with racist in contemporary American politics as in eg The Perils and Promise of America's Third Reconstruction. Not to mention that reconstructionists in the post-civil war era were rarely (former) confederates
 
Maybe you could explain what you mean by reconstructionists as it doesn't seem a term naturally going with racist in contemporary American politics
Sorry, I meant 'revisionists', of course; this must have been typed pre-coffee. The mouthbreathing morons who keep banging on about they nearly won the US Civil War, and how much better it would have been if they had done. And of course it wasn't about slavery, how could you think that?
 
Well the war of 1812 (spoiler not just in 1812) was a draw for the UK and America but a win for 'Canada'.

Mexico survived having half its land taken.

And, of course there are at least 16 North American nations , 17 if you count Greenland...
 
Last edited:
Well the war of 1812 (spoiler not just in 1812) was a draw for the UK and America but a win for 'Canada'.

Mexico survived having half its land taken.

And, of course there are at least 16 North American counties, 17 if you count Greenland...
there are at least 3100 counties in the united states alone
 
Well the war of 1812 (spoiler not just in 1812) was a draw for the UK and America but a win for 'Canada'.

Mexico survived having half its land taken.

And, of course there are at least 16 North American nations , 17 if you count Greenland...
There's many more than that, why there are more than 550 federally recognised Indian nations in the United States alone
 
Back
Top Bottom