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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I’m sure that’s the view from white southerners. The view from black southerners would be a little different.
It’s like the folks who are all nostalgic about the 50s. Sure, they were great if you were a straight cis white man. Not so much if you were gay or trans or black.
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.
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.