|
The Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri river system is the largest drainage area in the world. Rivers unite people, not divide them, thus these rivers will DRIVE the people on its banks to unite. The Great lakes drainage system is within 20 miles of the above drainage system AND over relativity flat terrain, again such water ways unite people, not divide them (Thus Canada has used the Dollar as its currency since the 1840s for it has been part of the economic country of America, using 1/2 of the Great Lakes Water system, that water systems connections to the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri water system and connecting both to the MacKenzie/Hudson bay water system). Yes, Canada and the US have been one economic "country" for almost 200 years (and the French and Indian wars of the 1700s was more a war over WHO shall control the above single economic entity then any thing else for the French and English came into Conflict in the above three areas, with the French being driven out of French controlled areas by the English in the 1760s, and then the English being driven out by their America allies when America determined that the English wanted to replace the French NOT leave the above to America).
Now, it is possible for Countries to be legally "Independent" States (The Term State being used here in its sense of a legal entity, just as the USA and Canada today) and still be economically one country (which is how the US and Canada are today, both are legal Independent states, but economically one country). Germany after the Napoleonic Wars came to be a similar situation, came to viewed themselves as one country even while remaining independent States (and this continued till and through the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, where the "Independent" States of Bavaria and the other Southern/Catholic German States went to war with France when Prussia ended up in war with France). Many Federations throughout histories were such united Countries but with legal independent states (And sometimes these would be more "Alliances" then "Federation, but everyone understood to attack one was to attack all of them. This, in many ways, is how Canada and the US view each other, an attack on either states is viewed as an attack on their Country. If the US Breaks up sooner or later this will re-appear do to the draw an uniting affect of the Great lakes and the above Rivers.
Now once you get away from the above, then you have areas that could be both independent legal states and independent Countries, these include the following area:
1.San Francisco and the Rivers flowing into it,
2. Puget Sound (Which includes Vancouver and the western parts of British Columbia), Oregon and the Columbia River Drainage system (which includes parts of Canada),
3. Colorado River System (Which may or may not include Southern California, and the parts of Northern Mexico around the Gulf of Cortes/California),
4. Rio Grand River System (Which includes parts of northern Mexico),
5. Massachusetts bay (Including Maine, New Brunswick, and maybe Nova Scotia and the rest of the Maritime provinces of Canada with the exception of New Found land),
6. New York City (Including Long Island, Northern New Jersey and New York State up to West Point, Connecticut, and maybe Rhode Island, Rhode Island is a question mark, very close to Boston by land, but by Ship closer to New York City, thus drawn both ways),
7. Philadelphia (including Southern New Jersey, Eastern Pa up to Harrisburg but Harrisburg and much of the area locally known as "Central Pa" is also drawn to Baltimore for that is where the Susquehanna river flows, Northern Pa, pass Harrisburg then to Baltimore MD, drawing all the commerce to Baltimore more then Philadelphia, but Philadelphia has a quicker trip by ship to New York City, Boston and Europe),
8. Chesapeake Bay from Baltimore to Southern Virginia, drawing some power from the Appalachian Mountains AND North Carolina,
9. Charleston South Carolina, reaching into Georgia and Atlanta
10. Florida, from Jacksonville on south
The rest of what is now the United States, is so tied in with the Mississippi river system that to be economically independent is NOT worth the money it would cost to be independent (Even the ports would NOT want to be independent, for excess fees on exports or imports to places further up the river would just invite an attack by those people upstream). The people upstream would be looking at restrictions on exports and imports that would be unacceptable to them, thus some sort of understanding, either a formal united State, a strong federation OR an alliance so close that it would be an alliance in name only (Legal Independent states, but each state fully ready to defend any other state as if an attack on any other state would be a direct attack on them). If the US would break up, this trend would re-appear, Canada might expand south (Ending up with more Americans of today then Canadians of today, and ending up controlled by the majority of mostly Americans of Today) or Canada may just stop south of the Great Lakes leaving the rest
of the Mississippi/Ohio/Rover System to form up as an Independent nation (My money on an expanding power headquartered in Chicago taking over the whole, Great Lakes, Mississippi River System).
The real question is how would the above 10 independent states react to a reunited Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System? Some would just be drawn to it by the sheer economic strength (i.e. become economically part of the Same Country, even while maintaining being a legal independent state). Most would just fold back into the country, even if that means ending their independence as a legal independent state. For Comparison just look at the History of China and how it broke up and re-untied ever 400-800 years since it first became a united Legal State AND Economic Country around 200 BC under its first emperor.
The only real problem to such reunification would be some draw by some other economic power. For example the East Coast of the US was populated and controlled by England starting in the 1600s. By the time of the English Civil War (1640) the America Colonies were left on their own and de facto independent from that point onward (In many ways the American Revolution was more a rejection of increase control by England over the Colonies then any real move to real independence for the American Colonies had been de facto independent since the 1640s). The Weakness of the American Indians Tribes of the 1600s and 1700s and the Corruption of the French Colonial Government prevent either from filling the void caused by the huge population drop in the American Heartland by Small pox and other introduced diseases, till the American Population was large enough to move into the Ohio and Mississippi River System about the time of the American Revolution.
Today, Europe is even more powerful then England and France had been in the 1700s, but the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System is NOT only heavily populated but almost an equal on its own to Europe in economic power, and being a lot closer to the American East Coast I do NOT see any part of the East Coast NOT re-joining the Union on some basis within 20 years of any reunification of the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System. The same with Canada's Yukon and American Alaska, no one else will be any where need the draw of the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System.
On the other hand the Mexican Valley is very strong economic power on its own. If you add in the East and West Coast of Mexico is very strong. It is not in the same league as the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System, but almost no other economic country is (As President Diaz said in the late 1800s when he was Dictator of Mexico, "poor Mexico, so far from God, and so close to the United States"). As you can see above, I mention the Rio Grand and Colorado Drainage System. Mexico controlled these areas when Mexico was ruled by Spain (Through the control was weak at best). When Mexico became Independent, whatever Control it had over both areas were quickly lost (Through legally Mexico controlled the area, but after 1820 these areas came more and more under American economic control). If the US would break up and for some reason Mexico would stay united (Given the Situation in Mexico right now, unlikely but stranger things have happened) it is possible that these two areas would return to Mexican Legal Control right after Mexico achieved Economic Control of both areas. Los Angles and Southern California would quickly follow.
These three areas have ALWAYS been drawn to both economic powers, the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System and the Mexican Vally system. Bring drawn to both areas it is possible that these three areas would become like Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg in that they become Legal Independent States but retain Economic Contacts with BOTH economic Powers (i.e. You end up with the US from Alaska to Quebec to Maine to Florida, but ends south of Austin in Texas where a new Border Develops between the US and the new independent State of the Rio Grand. Los Vegas the the Rest of the Colorado River Basin following a similar trend (I.e. Independent of BOTH Countries). If the Colorado River is either part of Mexico OR becomes an Independent State, Los Angles and Southern California may adopt a similar position i.e. legal Independence, but maintain economic ties with both the US and Mexico. The Great Basin, which I did NOT mention above, could do the same but only if San Francisco decides to do the same (The old Union Pacific Main line runs through this area, thus it can only go if San Francisco goes).
As to Oregon (and the Columbia River) AND Puget Sound, both are to far north to be pulled by the Mexican Valley, thus will be drawn to the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System. With these two area as part of a re-untied America, the pressure on San Francisco and the Great Basin would be great. Thus if the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System maintain any form of unity, anything north of Los Angles will re-united with the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System. On the other hand if the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System does not unite for any reason, I can see not only San Francisco becoming and Independent State so would the Great Basin, Oregon and the Puget Sound. Thus as long as the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System is NOT united, you may have Seven Countries On the West Coast and the Border of Mexico (Puget Sound, Oregon, San Francisco, Salt Lake City and the Great Basin, Los Angles, The Colorado River and the Rio Grand River) but as soon as the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System is re-united four of those Countries would join or be annexed (Puget Sound, Oregon, San Francisco and the Great Basin). Los Angles and Southern California may be able to stay independent IF supported by Colorado (Through the Nation of the Colorado River may make Los Angles part of its country).
Yes, I went into details that include Mexico and Canada for the United States and Canada are two Independent States, but are one Economic Country (and given that the dominate language is English in both, one Nation in that Nation implies a unity of language and world outlook more then economic unity or legal unity). A break up of the US would also affect both Mexico and Canada to a degree unthinkable by most people today. Canada would not survive a break up of the US, it will either annex so much of the US it will cease to be Canada, or be swallowed up during any war or other movement to re-united the US. Mexico would have to address the problems caused by the Rio Grand and Colorado Rivers being shared between Mexico and the US and how to handle distortion of the waters of both rivers. Mexico may find it easier to grant independence to its Northern States and have them annex the rest of each River's Drainage systems then take over the drainage areas themselves. This giving the impression that Mexico is NOT annexing those parts of the US (The US could do the reverse if Mexico breaks up, set up New Mexico as an Independent state and then have New Mexico take over both sides of the Rio Grand, including those parts presently in the State of Texas, a similar policy could be done with Arizona and the Colorado River, just leave Los Angles inside the US along with the rest of California).
Just food for through for those people who look to independence of their state, given the geography of the US the economic pull of the Mississippi/Ohio/Missouri/ Great Lakes System is to great for any part of what is now the US or Canada to be truly independent. The exceptions to that rule are along the border with Mexico do to the economic draw of the Mexican Valley. Most such movements are not viable given how the rivers flow in this country (and the roads and railroads follow or connect those rivers more then being independent of them).
Texas Republicans have talked about succession, but the only part of Texas that can truly succeed, the Rio Grand Vally, has given no such support (and is overwhelmingly Democratic). The South can not survive without the North, Alaska, which has a succession party, is also not capable of being independent (i.e. a drain on funding from Washington NOT a source of funding) and, like the Rio Grand Vally, the only people capable of being Independent, the Native Americans in that area, have no desire to be independent (The Native American just do not trust the members of the Alaska Independence Party when it comes to their rights). I have heard of no such movement among Native Americans in Canada (I have heard of movements for more control over local government i.e. more native American Governments but no move to be independent of Canada).
Vermont as an independent country? How would it import and export if the US puts on a huge import tax on things imported from Vermont? How would it address the need for passports and Visa just to cross into New York State? Vermont is to small to be anything more then an isolated and improvised country (People could not leave, could not enter without US permission, both of which encourages everyone to leave and they will, causing dropping exports, dropping real estate prices and other economic hardships). If the US would break up Vermont may find itself independent of both New York, Quebec, and Massachusetts bay, an isolated back water, wanted by no one except as an invasion route to one of the other powers in the area (Which would encourage any state beside Vermont to keep its roads in as poor as shape as possible so less likely an avenue of attack).
I wish people would actually look into what Independence would mean before they start advocating it. The down side is a bad even if just skimmed on. Most of the people advocating independence assume the US would NOT treat the new independent state as a hostile state, but as a friendly state. That will NOT happen unless it is to the US best interests (AND that will rarely be the case, just look at Cuba). If the US is hostile to the New Independent State it is simply not viable. Canada found this out by 1850 and determined NOT to be hostile to the US (Britain's decision to give Canada "Confederation" status in 1867 was more the result of London determining that any attempt by England to hold onto Canada against a determined US attack was doomed to Failure, even if England had 100% support from Canada and its Citizens, Confederation told the US that Britain would NOT use Canada as a base to attack the US and that Britain would NOT stand in the way of any US annexation i.e. Britain gave the Economic life of Canada to the US in exchange for an understanding that Canada would be free from direct US economic and Political Control. It was a compromise acceptable to all three parties, the US, Britain and Canada. Some economic independence for Canada was preserved in that understanding but as a whole Canada was recognized by Britain that is was of the US Economic Country. The various Independence Movements really should look into this reality but most do not want to for once you look into it the various independence movements make no economic/political or National sense (i.e. Make no sense in a Legal, state sense, makes no sense in a Economic Country sense and even makes no sense in a Language/Culture Nation sense).
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
