If the U.S. Collapses, What Would Be The Future of Your State (and City)

[Centropolis]

make-missouri-huge-again

[pepper steak]

Originally Posted by JManc

People don't realize how fragile civil society is. All it takes is a period of time and hardship for the deck of cards to fall. If TikTok is down for a few days, GenZ will not survive.


When it happens, I am going to form a cult in the Nevada desert and you are all cordially invited.

And if the bank is closed for a week, every boomer in America will starve to death.

"I will NEVER use ATMs or online banking! I take money out at the teller window just like I've done since the Harding administration! "

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pepper steak

And if the bank is closed for a week, every boomer in America will starve to death.

"I will NEVER use ATMs or online banking! I take money out at the teller window just like I've done since the Harding administration! "

Don't discount them boomers. They walk up hill (both ways) in the snow to get the money stashed in a coffee can in the back of the pantry.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Pretty sure a deeply authoritarian state would be a collapse, no?

And I somewhat disagree on your premise, anyway. There are likely a number of states that would come out relatively intact, even if economically harmed tremendously in the short and medium term. Of course, who knows what happens long term in such a scenario. California and Texas are the two most obvious candidates, even more so than New York (which would have to go about bargaining with Jersey, Connecticut, and others to ensure the continuation of the metro within a single national entity). I’d also nominate Louisiana to that list.

California and Texas are not bound by culture, language or history. Nearly their entire existence is tied to being part of the US. If the federal government collapsed, I suspect the same mechanism that brought it down would take the state governments down with it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JManc

Don't discount them boomers. They walk up hill (both ways) in the snow to get the money stashed in a coffee can in the back of the pantry.



California and Texas are not bound by culture, language or history. Nearly their entire existence is tied to being part of the US. If the federal government collapsed, I suspect the same mechanism that brought it down would take the state governments down with it.

It depends on what that mechanism is:

Does the U.S. fail because our politics stop working at the federal level? Or does it stop working because:

• environmental/ecological collapse
• economic collapse beyond the great depression
• a public health emergency far worse than covid
• political revolution
• another option, or more than one of these simultaneously?

I think it does not necessarily follow that state governments themselves also collapse or fail to continue functioning just from knowing that a federal country might collapse. After all, the post-Roman period found numerous successor states that were direct reflections of the instruments, methods, military forces, and bureaucracies of the governance in its provinces and territories and often reflected the previous provincial boundaries. Why do you think France is France? Or that Spain is Spain. Nevermind that Romania (the closest extant language to true Latin, fwiw), still, is an almost perfect reflection of the Roman territory and the pre-Roman kingdom, even with interruptions and modest changes. Why do you think the boundary between Scotland and England is still where it is? And numerous other examples, despite Rome being brought down by successive crises each which combined multiple elements above.

State lines would not be exactly how they are now, sure, we agree, but they will largely reflect what currently exists and we should expect that - unless we enter a total and complete dark ages due to climate change the likes of which would make the dark ages look like child’s play - some or many states will emerge in some form as individual or collective nations rather quickly after the federal collapse, if nothing or no-one emerges to put it all back together. Just as what happened after the collapse of Rome. Just as what generally always happens after a federally structured government collapses. The USSR is another example. And even in most cases where it is a unitary structure, too.

For fwiw, I don’t think we are going to collapse anytime soon.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's not a fantasy, lol. This is supported by things that happened. You don't need to be a cunning genius to destabilize a country. A powerful idiot has brought down more societies than we can count.

It didn't though you are just dramatic and hysterical. Turn off the boob tube and go outside. Nothing was destabilized besides my eardrums from endless screeching by the chattering classes.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I could also see Washington getting annexed by Canada, if the people up north weren't so polite.

Politics aside, Washington would be a big advantage to Canada. Milder climate, more agricultural independence, ports, lots of hydro power, high-value industries, room to grow on the overly-constrained West Coast...

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It depends on what that mechanism is:

Does the U.S. fail because our politics stop working at the federal level? Or does it stop working because:

• environmental/ecological collapse
• economic collapse beyond the great depression
• a public health emergency far worse than covid
• political revolution
• another option, or more than one of these simultaneously?

I think it does not necessarily follow that state governments themselves also collapse or fail to continue functioning just from knowing that a federal country might collapse. After all, the post-Roman period found numerous successor states that were direct reflections of the instruments, methods, military forces, and bureaucracies of the governance in its provinces and territories and often reflected the previous provincial boundaries. Why do you think France is France? Or that Spain is Spain. Nevermind that Romania (the closest extant language to true Latin, fwiw), still, is an almost perfect reflection of the Roman territory and the pre-Roman kingdom, even with interruptions and modest changes. Why do you think the boundary between Scotland and England is still where it is? And numerous other examples, despite Rome being brought down by successive crises each which combined multiple elements above.

State lines would not be exactly how they are now, sure, we agree, but they will largely reflect what currently exists and we should expect that - unless we enter a total and complete dark ages due to climate change the likes of which would make the dark ages look like child’s play - some or many states will emerge in some form as individual or collective nations rather quickly after the federal collapse, if nothing or no-one emerges to put it all back together. Just as what happened after the collapse of Rome. Just as what generally always happens after a federally structured government collapses. The USSR is another example. And even in most cases where it is a unitary structure, too.

For fwiw, I don’t think we are going to collapse anytime soon.

There has been a lot of discussion about states going the same way as the federal government if there is a "collapse" but I tend to agree with you that they might be able to ride things out.

For starters, US states are not federated entities like the US itself. They are in fact the base political unit on which the federation is built. The US is fundamentally a union of states, but states are not unions of counties, cities and towns.

Counties and cities are by and large not original pre-existing entities that created states, but rather administrative divisions that the states themselves created to manage their territory.

Another thing that is interesting as a Canadian is that US states have their own national guards. We don't have anything remotely similar under the control of provincial governments in Canada. At most the two largest provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have provincial police forces but these are more like state trooper that military-style outfits.

And 8 of our 10 provinces actually rely on the federal RCMP to patrol their highways and serve as the local police on much of their territory.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There has been a lot of discussion about states going the same way as the federal government if there is a "collapse" but I tend to agree with you that they might be able to ride things out.

For starters, US states are not federated entities like the US itself. They are in fact the base political unit on which the federation is built. The US is fundamentally a union of states, but states are not unions of counties, cities and towns.

Counties and cities are by and large not original pre-existing entities that created states, but rather administrative divisions that the states themselves created to manage their territory.

Another thing that is interesting as a Canadian is that US states have their own national guards. We don't have anything remotely similar under the control of provincial governments in Canada. At most the two largest provinces (Ontario and Quebec) have provincial police forces but these are more like state trooper that military-style outfits.

And 8 of our 10 provinces actually rely on the federal RCMP to patrol their highways and serve as the local police on much of their territory.

Yeah, exactly. The U.S. started out more like an alliance or coalition than a singular country, and it still retains a lot of that design today.

I do think some of my fellow Americans are really understating the risk of a government collapse, though, and the coalition structure of our country could play a big role in that. The presidency is the only office that Americans vote for collectively, albeit through their states, so this could be the source of conflict for major disputes between states. If we ever end up in a situation where the winner of the presidency is seriously contested on the grounds of rogue state legislatures overriding their voters to support a particular candidate then that be very ugly.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, exactly. The U.S. started out more like an alliance or coalition than a singular country, and it still retains a lot of that design today.

Spoiler: “democracy” as it is, won’t last the century. But the USA will.

[tdawg]

Everyone should listen to Rachel Maddow's "Ultra" podcast about how Nazi sympathizers infiltrated our government in the 1930s with the goal of overthrowing it from the inside. We've been here before. I, for one, based on the Midterms, feel hopeful.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Spoiler: “democracy” as it is, won’t last the century. But the USA will.

Perhaps. Democracy a century ago looks nothing like it does today now that women, Black people, and white men between ages 18-21 can vote. But I'm curious what you think it will look like in a century.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by JManc

California and Texas are not bound by culture, language or history. Nearly their entire existence is tied to being part of the US.

The names "California" and "Tejas" are older then the name "United States of America". Both states have existed for around 500 years, and were a part of Spain, or Mexico, or Independent, for about 300 of those years. And of course for thousands of years before that, there were already other people living in those places, who called them by different names.

[Steely Dan]

Recent article on the southern Illinois secession movement:

Group pushing secession from Illinois says Madison County is a key target

If the federal.governemt ever falls, there's no way IL stays together as it currently exists today. The Chicagoland/downstate cultural chasm is just too vast.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Recent article on the southern Illinois secession movement:

Group pushing secession from Illinois says Madison County is a key target

If the federal.governemt ever falls, there's no way IL stays together as it currently exists today. The Chicagoland/downstate cultural chasm is just too vast.

Currently active state cleavage movements may all be small, but they exist and are numerous:

• California (splitting up wholesale)
• Oregon (transmontane Oregon seceding)
• Washington (transmontane Washington seceding)
• Michigan (the UP)
• Illinois (downstate leaves)
• Colorado (plains counties secede)
• Arizona (Tucson, etc, split off)
• Florida (Miami area leaves)

Plus literally dozens of others over the past decade.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Currently active state cleavage movements may all be small, but they exist and are numerous:

• California (splitting up wholesale)
• Oregon (transmontane Oregon seceding)
• Washington (transmontane Washington seceding)
• Michigan (the UP)
• Illinois (downstate leaves)
• Colorado (plains counties secede)
• Arizona (Tucson, etc, split off)
• Florida (Miami area leaves)

Plus literally dozens of others over the past decade.

To me, California (or Texas) splitting up seems the most realistic. California splitting up would be good for the political stability of the country, but if the U.S. collapsed it would probably be more convenient for California if it remained one state. I don't envision Michigan ever allowing the UP to leave.

In the event that the U.S. were to split, I think economics would become a much bigger issue than it is now. Without aligning with a strong economic center, I'm not sure what a place like South Illinois would become other than a North American Afghanistan.

[chris08876]

I would imagine the Yellowstone eruption would cause the U.S. to collapse.

Food would be the reason. The great plains, all the food.


Credit: sciencenews

[jd3189]

^^^ Yeah, out of all the possible scenarios of how the US would collapse, this is the most realistic and definite. It wouldn’t just be América though. The whole world as we know it would cease to exist.



/end thread.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by tech12

The names "California" and "Tejas" are older then the name "United States of America". Both states have existed for around 500 years, and were a part of Spain, or Mexico, or Independent, for about 300 of those years. And of course for thousands of years before that, there were already other people living in those places, who called them by different names.

They were thinly populated backwater provinces; a modern equivalent would be Yukon or NWT in Canada. California and Texas are what they are because of their place within the USA.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

To me, California (or Texas) splitting up seems the most realistic. California splitting up would be good for the political stability of the country, but if the U.S. collapsed it would probably be more convenient for California if it remained one state. I don't envision Michigan ever allowing the UP to leave.

In the event that the U.S. were to split, I think economics would become a much bigger issue than it is now. Without aligning with a strong economic center, I'm not sure what a place like South Illinois would become other than a North American Afghanistan.

I live in the State of Jefferson part of CA and I have a flag for it, but that's more of a gag than being serious. The GDP would be so low there'd be almost no services, although having the new southeast additions would help.

The borders fluctuate depending who's in the White House, so there's less talk about it during some administrations. This ain't the CE so you guys are gonna have to guess which ones!
Source

[lio45]

A related question: which change to the territory of the USA do you find the least unlikely to happen? I’m talking change of borders, not just of status. (DC or PR gaining statehood doesn’t count, but any part of territory leaving the Union or getting acquired by it counts.)