Even if we could agree upon the assumption that wealth creation would remain concentrated in regional areas and the econmic pie would never become larger, which I’d have trouble accepting that mid-western and southern states would not be able to compete with the rest and the industrial and technical revolutions have changed nothing since 1913, especially in the near abscence of Federal window-breaking, it would become entirely moot should we be over taken by communists or become embrioled in another civil war in an effort to resist such. It is much harder to win 50 versions of the same argument than it is to win it once at the top where the only recourse for the people is to vote them out of office after the damage has been done, assuming that elections are still allowed.
But an even closer look at red vs blue state discussion, New York has been bleeding enterprenuers and investment capital due to socialistic policies for years and it has only accelerated since the recession started. As a consequence our taxes and cost of living are much higher and an argument could be made that is relatively equal to pay $5k out of $60k income in NY as it is to pay $5k out of $30k income in AR.
After the Civil War the Freedman's Bureau opened thousands of schools for black and white. When Reconstruction collapsed the South closed them. The South remained grossly uneducated, a condition that carries through to this day, despite the gap closing somewhat. The South was not amenable to any but the most basic of manufacturing.
New York may be bleeding entrepreneurs but it is attracting more. It is still the financial capital of the world. That goes to show how resilient capitalism is. It can survive corruption, taxes, Sarbanes-Oxley and a thousand other bodyblows but it keeps on keeping on. It may be crippled but it still functions.