5 ms·

We're getting closer to two Americas. Policies like these will only exacerbate the transition. Expect to mass over non-compliance from conservative states and b

We're getting closer to two Americas. Policies like these will only exacerbate the transition. Expect to mass over non-compliance from conservative states and businesses

DaftDank 5y ago
There's always been two Americas, if not more. We've just tried to fool ourselves into believing otherwise for a long time.
- da_big_ghey 5y ago
  Then why did we fight a war on keeping them together. Maybe both would be happier if south and middle states split from coast ones.
  - supergeek133 5y ago
    It's also the urban centers from the rest of some states. For instance I live in MN, the city center is very blue and the rest of the state is not.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Inside vs outside of the city and wealthy inner and middle suburbs is a far more massive cultural divide than red state vs blue state, nominal political party membership, rich vs poor or anything else.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      This ^ It's mostly urban vs rural, even on the coasts and in states like CA. Visual: https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/ https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
    - DaftDank 5y ago
      From my own personal, subjective experiences, I've found this to be the big one. I've lived in 8 states now, in all regions except the Northeast, from big cities to smaller towns (SF to towns of ~30,000) and the rural vs. urban divide seems to be the most pronounced to me.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        30k is a small town? Seems like a medium-large town to me. Thw small town I grew up in (partially) was like 1/6th that size.
        tomrod 5y ago
        Yes, it's a pretty small town. My undergrad was approximately that size. Of course, smaller exist! There are functioning towns in East Texas with less than 500 people in them! My favorite is Caledonia; cherished memories are that upon crossing the border my father would pull his best BB King impression and belt out the eponymous tune.
        thomastjeffery 5y ago
        30k is either a small city or a very large building.
        DaftDank 5y ago
        Hah, yeah I suppose it's relative. I guess a really small town I would think of having less than maybe 1,000 people, but 30,000 is about the smallest sized town I'd ever want to live in personally.
  - pwinnski 5y ago
    Lincoln's second inaugural address[0] spells out why in some detail. 0. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page...
  - manquer 5y ago
    Money/economy was certainly a big reason. Back in 1860s, cotton and other plantation heavy industries where very lucrative, the southern states were very wealthy enough to be able to field a big army for years, while they lacked strong industry to support an extended campaign. Also manifest destiny and especially Monroe doctorine all pre dated the civil war, there was certainly strong idealogoical belief on who the continent was for.
    - DaftDank 5y ago
      The south's money/economy was dependent upon slavery, that is true. But every single southern state listed the right to own slaves as one of their reasons for secession. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
      - Ancapistani 5y ago
        Your link lists five states - there were eleven in the Confederacy. While I believe most did list slavery as cause of action either directly or obliquely, not all did. Here is a transcript of Arkansas’s Ordinance of Secession: https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1000&context=secession-ordinance&type=additional https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?fil... Note that there is no mention of slavery.
        ultraluminous 5y ago
        Arkansas was one of the last states to seceded the union. The very second sentence in the ordinance linked is "In addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention in resolutions adopted". You are more than welcome to look up those "causes and complaints" and let me know whether they are slavery related or not.
        Ancapistani 5y ago
        While I don’t have time to do that right now, I will make a point to do so. I’m curious now, and haven’t enumerated all of the resolutions before. I have read a ton of contemporary writings by the various politicians who signed Arkansas’s OoS, and with a couple of exceptions the vast majority claimed at the time to have supported secession in response to the military actions of the Union. There were relatively few slaveholders in the state at the time, and they were largely concentrated in the Delta, along the border with Mississippi.
  - OneEyedRobot 5y ago
    I'd say that the pressure for fission becomes higher as the scope of federal government increases. Using spending as an approximation for control: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S WWII being an outlier of course. I'd like to have the numbers for the 19th C. There was a time when a state/county/municipality could largely ignore central government diktat. With centralization there'll be a tendency for a single dominant group to get into everyone's business more and more. This can happen via statute, spending, or even lack of law enforcement in desired behaviors. ..and of course it tends to split urban vs. rural, Anglosphere vs. everyone else. The wish or need for central control varies quite a lot between the groups.
    - R0b0t1 5y ago
      I agree, a lot of problems seem to stem from over-reliance on federal authority to solve problems. It can get a bit reductionist but people are essentially mad they are not able to live in the way they want.
  - SiempreViernes 5y ago
    If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. It was not a conflict where two somewhat equal partners work out their difficulties, it was a war where the central government fought down an insurrection and during witch the south got utterly devastated and was under occupation for 10 years.
    - meepmorp 5y ago
      > it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. This is a hilariously skewed understanding of the civil war. Do you also believe the south seceded over states rights?
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Over their states rights to hold slaves, which were an important component in the agrarian economy and an established part of the Antebellum culture.
        ultraluminous 5y ago
        If only the slaves had any appreciation to the important component they were in their slave master's culture, they'd probably complain a lot less and try harder to accommodate their agrarian needs. sadly necessary /s
    - oceanplexian 5y ago
      You could also argue that the civil war was about restoring bodily autonomy to a group of people who had been enslaved and forced against their will by corporations and governments.
    - stefantalpalaru 5y ago
      > If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. "Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states. Of the states that were exempted from the proclamation, Maryland (1864), Missouri and Tennessee (January 1865), and West Virginia (February 1865) abolished slavery before the war ended. However, Delaware and Kentucky, while they saw a substantial reduction in slavery, did not see the abolition of slavery until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- m12k 5y ago
  There's always been two Americas, but there's been a balkanization in recent years. Until a handful of years ago, I had never heard of a president that didn't at least pay lip service to the idea of unity, of serving all Americans and not just those that voted for him. Sure, division has long been a tactics to get elected, but I don't think I've seen it praised as an actual goal before by a leading political figure from a major party.
  - thebooktocome 5y ago
    Nixon was more than a handful of years ago. The Southern strategy was explicitly about creating such a stubbornly supportive majority in the electoral college that they could ignore the rest of the country.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
disneygibson 5y ago
The fact that this has been divided along sociopolitical lines should make it obvious that neither side is genuinely looking at the issue with clear eyes. It’s entirely tribal, as the comments in this thread illustrate.
- tomrod 5y ago
  I don't think it's social lines, socioeconomic lines. Following Karen Armstrong's political philosophy, all politics not local are inherently religious/ideals driven.
tomrod 5y ago
I'm not concerned. It's time to roll up sleeves as a civic duty.
ren_engineer 5y ago
there's no such thing as a conservative state, look at county level election maps. It's all rural vs Urban, even in New York and California. Suburbs are for the most part purple as well people who talk about succession and splitting off have no idea what they are talking about, it wouldn't be clean at all
- moistrobot 5y ago
  There's no way to split geographically, and it won't be clean.
  - TechBro8615 5y ago
    Well, one side is contained in a limited number of cities…
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      But those cities are in every state. I guess we could potentially see the rise of the city state again.
      - TechBro8615 5y ago
        They also get their food deliveries from the opposing party, so maybe we’ll see something else.
        amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        Trade crosses political boundaries all the time. Farmers want to sell their product, and hungry people want to buy them. This benefits both parties.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure. People routinely shoot themselves in the foot economically for ideological reasons.
oldcigarette 5y ago
Well at least 4chan and hackernews are getting closer together (still miles apart but never thought i'd see the day). I'm not sure what to make if it all.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

We're getting closer to two Americas. Policies like these will only exacerbate the transition. Expect to mass over non-compliance from conservative states and businesses

DaftDank 5y ago

There's always been two Americas, if not more. We've just tried to fool ourselves into believing otherwise for a long time.

da_big_ghey 5y ago
Then why did we fight a war on keeping them together. Maybe both would be happier if south and middle states split from coast ones.
- supergeek133 5y ago
  It's also the urban centers from the rest of some states. For instance I live in MN, the city center is very blue and the rest of the state is not.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Inside vs outside of the city and wealthy inner and middle suburbs is a far more massive cultural divide than red state vs blue state, nominal political party membership, rich vs poor or anything else.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    This ^ It's mostly urban vs rural, even on the coasts and in states like CA. Visual: https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/ https://brilliantmaps.com/2016-county-election-map/
  - DaftDank 5y ago
    From my own personal, subjective experiences, I've found this to be the big one. I've lived in 8 states now, in all regions except the Northeast, from big cities to smaller towns (SF to towns of ~30,000) and the rural vs. urban divide seems to be the most pronounced to me.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      30k is a small town? Seems like a medium-large town to me. Thw small town I grew up in (partially) was like 1/6th that size.
      - tomrod 5y ago
        Yes, it's a pretty small town. My undergrad was approximately that size. Of course, smaller exist! There are functioning towns in East Texas with less than 500 people in them! My favorite is Caledonia; cherished memories are that upon crossing the border my father would pull his best BB King impression and belt out the eponymous tune.
      - thomastjeffery 5y ago
        30k is either a small city or a very large building.
      - DaftDank 5y ago
        Hah, yeah I suppose it's relative. I guess a really small town I would think of having less than maybe 1,000 people, but 30,000 is about the smallest sized town I'd ever want to live in personally.
- pwinnski 5y ago
  Lincoln's second inaugural address[0] spells out why in some detail. 0. https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page=transcript https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page...
- manquer 5y ago
  Money/economy was certainly a big reason. Back in 1860s, cotton and other plantation heavy industries where very lucrative, the southern states were very wealthy enough to be able to field a big army for years, while they lacked strong industry to support an extended campaign. Also manifest destiny and especially Monroe doctorine all pre dated the civil war, there was certainly strong idealogoical belief on who the continent was for.
  - DaftDank 5y ago
    The south's money/economy was dependent upon slavery, that is true. But every single southern state listed the right to own slaves as one of their reasons for secession. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declaration-causes-seceding-states https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
    - Ancapistani 5y ago
      Your link lists five states - there were eleven in the Confederacy. While I believe most did list slavery as cause of action either directly or obliquely, not all did. Here is a transcript of Arkansas’s Ordinance of Secession: https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=1000&context=secession-ordinance&type=additional https://digitalheritage.arkansas.gov/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?fil... Note that there is no mention of slavery.
      - ultraluminous 5y ago
        Arkansas was one of the last states to seceded the union. The very second sentence in the ordinance linked is "In addition to the well-founded causes of complaint set forth by this convention in resolutions adopted". You are more than welcome to look up those "causes and complaints" and let me know whether they are slavery related or not.
        Ancapistani 5y ago
        While I don’t have time to do that right now, I will make a point to do so. I’m curious now, and haven’t enumerated all of the resolutions before. I have read a ton of contemporary writings by the various politicians who signed Arkansas’s OoS, and with a couple of exceptions the vast majority claimed at the time to have supported secession in response to the military actions of the Union. There were relatively few slaveholders in the state at the time, and they were largely concentrated in the Delta, along the border with Mississippi.
- OneEyedRobot 5y ago
  I'd say that the pressure for fission becomes higher as the scope of federal government increases. Using spending as an approximation for control: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S WWII being an outlier of course. I'd like to have the numbers for the 19th C. There was a time when a state/county/municipality could largely ignore central government diktat. With centralization there'll be a tendency for a single dominant group to get into everyone's business more and more. This can happen via statute, spending, or even lack of law enforcement in desired behaviors. ..and of course it tends to split urban vs. rural, Anglosphere vs. everyone else. The wish or need for central control varies quite a lot between the groups.
  - R0b0t1 5y ago
    I agree, a lot of problems seem to stem from over-reliance on federal authority to solve problems. It can get a bit reductionist but people are essentially mad they are not able to live in the way they want.
- SiempreViernes 5y ago
  If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. It was not a conflict where two somewhat equal partners work out their difficulties, it was a war where the central government fought down an insurrection and during witch the south got utterly devastated and was under occupation for 10 years.
  - meepmorp 5y ago
    > it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. This is a hilariously skewed understanding of the civil war. Do you also believe the south seceded over states rights?
    - tomrod 5y ago
      Over their states rights to hold slaves, which were an important component in the agrarian economy and an established part of the Antebellum culture.
      - ultraluminous 5y ago
        If only the slaves had any appreciation to the important component they were in their slave master's culture, they'd probably complain a lot less and try harder to accommodate their agrarian needs. sadly necessary /s
  - oceanplexian 5y ago
    You could also argue that the civil war was about restoring bodily autonomy to a group of people who had been enslaved and forced against their will by corporations and governments.
  - stefantalpalaru 5y ago
    > If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. "Lincoln's 1863 Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states. Of the states that were exempted from the proclamation, Maryland (1864), Missouri and Tennessee (January 1865), and West Virginia (February 1865) abolished slavery before the war ended. However, Delaware and Kentucky, while they saw a substantial reduction in slavery, did not see the abolition of slavery until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_War) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_states_(American_Civil_...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
m12k 5y ago
There's always been two Americas, but there's been a balkanization in recent years. Until a handful of years ago, I had never heard of a president that didn't at least pay lip service to the idea of unity, of serving all Americans and not just those that voted for him. Sure, division has long been a tactics to get elected, but I don't think I've seen it praised as an actual goal before by a leading political figure from a major party.
- thebooktocome 5y ago
  Nixon was more than a handful of years ago. The Southern strategy was explicitly about creating such a stubbornly supportive majority in the electoral college that they could ignore the rest of the country.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

disneygibson 5y ago

The fact that this has been divided along sociopolitical lines should make it obvious that neither side is genuinely looking at the issue with clear eyes. It’s entirely tribal, as the comments in this thread illustrate.

tomrod 5y ago
I don't think it's social lines, socioeconomic lines. Following Karen Armstrong's political philosophy, all politics not local are inherently religious/ideals driven.

tomrod 5y ago

I'm not concerned. It's time to roll up sleeves as a civic duty.

ren_engineer 5y ago

there's no such thing as a conservative state, look at county level election maps. It's all rural vs Urban, even in New York and California. Suburbs are for the most part purple as well people who talk about succession and splitting off have no idea what they are talking about, it wouldn't be clean at all

moistrobot 5y ago
There's no way to split geographically, and it won't be clean.
- TechBro8615 5y ago
  Well, one side is contained in a limited number of cities…
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    But those cities are in every state. I guess we could potentially see the rise of the city state again.
    - TechBro8615 5y ago
      They also get their food deliveries from the opposing party, so maybe we’ll see something else.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        Trade crosses political boundaries all the time. Farmers want to sell their product, and hungry people want to buy them. This benefits both parties.
        throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        I wouldn't be so sure. People routinely shoot themselves in the foot economically for ideological reasons.

oldcigarette 5y ago

Well at least 4chan and hackernews are getting closer together (still miles apart but never thought i'd see the day). I'm not sure what to make if it all.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]