Would the north be better off with out the south?

http://www.volokh.com/2012/08/24/would-the-north-be-better-of-without-the-south/ ^

[djone]

"Without the South, the US would lose a great deal of its economic dynamism. And unless there was free migration between the two nations, northerners would lose a valuable foot voting option. In fairness, the South would never have achieved its recent economic successes without investment by northern and foreign business interests. But the issue is not whether southerners are solely responsible for the region’s revival since the 1960s, but whether southern secession today would leave the rest of the nation better off."

[djone]

"The New York Times has a review of a recent book by travel writer Chuck Thompson which argues that the rest of the country would be better off if the South seceded. In the nineteenth century, the main advocates of secession were southern supporters of slavery, though a few northerners flirted with the idea too. In recent years, ironically, those supporting the idea are almost as likely to be northern liberals as southern conservatives.

Whether Thompson’s argument is correct depends in part on your political ideology. If your overriding objective is to have a more left-wing federal government, it’s hard to deny that southern secession would accomplish that goal for the remainder of the United States. The nonsouthern electorate is significantly to the left of the present total US voting population (which of course includes the South).

[rockrr]

No but the world would be better off without so damned many leftists.

[Olog-hai]

Trading with China only makes the leftists stronger. People don’t seem to realize just how fanatical they are.

[Baynative]

I think the south would be better off without the north.

[comebacknewt]

If Obama is re-elected, I hope secession becomes a serious topic of discussion. Even if he is defeated, I would like to see it explored.

Neither side can stand each other. Might be time for an amicable split.

Instead of North / South though, I would like to see the Coasts split off along with most of the major cities throughout the rest of the country.

[Salgak]

The question is backwards. Because the South WOULD be better off without the North. . . .

[HMS Surprise]

I have often wondered... If the South was evil, and the North was a bastion of morality, then why didn’t the North WANT to secede? Why would the North have had this great desire to remain associated with slaveholding evildoers? Easy, it’s the same impulse that remains today: Power.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“If your overriding objective is to have a more left-wing federal government, it’s hard to deny that Southern secession would accomplish that goal for the remainder of the United States.”

The north would wind up eating their own.

Many would come scurrying across the border to the South.

[AlexW]

What a POS piece by some snotty nosed yankee, with a small y.
No doubt, he is also a Marxist Obot.

[WilliamRobert]

Yes you are right the South would be better off without the North. Crap if Texas left the North/country would lose one fifth of its economy. Take Louisiana with and the the North would be in major energy crunch. By all rights Alaska and the entire northwestern states would come to sans Washington and Oregon.

[pallis]

The south would have to find a way to defend itself from the north’s economic and cultural collapse. Build a wall to stop the desperate hordes from bringing their economic and cultural decay south. Have a Democrat deportation program.

[onyx]

The South has been saving the Union from the democrats for decades.

If anything, the South would be much better off without the damn liberal North.

[Secret Agent Man]

Well racists and leftists go hand in hand. DNC was the klan party and were designed to terrorize blacks and southern Republicans. Maybe we’d all be better off.

[Vince Ferrer]

We don’t need tyranny or secession, we just need a reinvigorated tenth amendment. The Constitution is the moderate, reasonable middle ground.

[Secret Agent Man]

Possibly both one can equally argue they didn’t want a nation that treated certain people less than people to get stronger and decide they wanted more land up north. Maybe they weren’t excited about that kind of encounter, maybe they didn’t want neighbors who may start saying that if you were a Northerner you weren’t a person either, you were just an animal that if they saw them, they could just shoot them like any other game.

If you are stupid enough to base peoples’ humanity on skin color you can base it on ideology or geography.

[Olog-hai]

It’s far more than that. Sovereignty factors in as well.

God doesn’t view those that reject their birthright with a kind eye. Look at Esau.

[jamaksin]

Mind of the South, by W. J. Cash, 1941.

[ilovesarah2012]

Nothing would make me happier than for the South to seceed. Seriously, conservatives get the South and Liberals the North. Wish it could be done.

[suthener]

This question is so ridiculous I can’t even come up with an answer. Let’s write an article titled “Would the Country Be Better Without African-Americans” and see how that plays out. Who are these people? I will say this; if California and New York want us to leave, I’m all for it. By God, we tried to leave one time and everybody got all upset.

[jsanders2001]

California needs to secede with the North. The South should get the Dakotas, Idaho and Montana too because they don’t think like the North...
; )