I have no idea where you're getting that from. It has nothing to do with "being homogenous", you're pulling that out of nowhere and shoving the words in my mouth. There are regions that have different factors that influence their production and markets, and that also have different class structures. It's plain old human geography. It is not such a complicated idea that, for instance, watersheds are more spontaneous/natural ways that people organize themselves, compared to latitudinal/longitudinal rectangles.
Granted, we do see some state borders that are formed by rivers and mountains. Those are the more stable ones.
You seem to be pretty confident that if the federal government (and armed forces) collapsed, that the factors that caused this would leave the state governments untouched. I guarantee you that many state governments (if not the majority of them) are way less stable than the federal government. And you seem to take it for granted that not only would the National Guard be in full operational order, but also ready and willing to engage in battle with and fire on their own citizens.
Let me give you a hypothetical if you want to knock it out. Federal government dissolves or weakens, and then the eastern 2/3 of both Washington and Oregon secede from their respective states. What happens next? Do the governments in Olympia and Portland engage in military campaigns to bring back the status quo ante of imaginary lines on a map?
Okay, then explain exactly what you mean by the 11 nations argument.
There are connections between places, largely resulting from terrain and biomes and climate, that matter much more than imaginary straight lines on a map. People naturally associate with others in their locality (<50 mile radius or so). For associations beyond that, geography matters much more than arbitrary straight lines. In the case of Africa which is not united by a single language, language is another thing that influences how close the association between neighboring countries is. If you were to forget the associations that American history primes you with, and then look at the physical map of the continent, you probably wouldn't divide it up the way it is now. You'd probably have the Appalachians separate from the east coast, and split each coast up into at least 2 parts at the climatic dividing line. You'd also see a continuity between the Rio Grande valley and northern Mexico. American Nations is one of the books that helped me develop a constructivist understanding of geography and anthropology instead of an essentialist one understanding.
Why would the guard, who does not depend on the fed, suddenly collapse?
Because the state governments are not independent of the federal government, and more importantly, the factors that would collapse the fed would also put very heavy strain on the states. You're assuming a situation that's like a person being killed by an explosion, but their brain and heart and lungs and stomach and liver and intestines all staying intact. What rips apart the whole is going to rip apart (at least some of) the components.
I would almost guarantee that any state apparatus would be more than willing to kill and suppress protesters in the event of a federal collapse.
Why would they do it to keep the imaginary line in place though? What matters is securing population centers and resource flows.
[Oregon] would not hesitate to kill some traitorous rural farmer.
The Great Basin is too dry for farming. Between the eastern edge of the Great Plains (concentrations of population in a north-south belt across SD, NE, IA, KS, MO, and OK) and the Western Rockies, you either have extremely unsustainable megafarms, or tiny individuals hanging on here and there, or nothing at all. The Malheur standoff was over grazing rights. I think you'd do well to read stuff about geography.
deleted by creator
I have no idea where you're getting that from. It has nothing to do with "being homogenous", you're pulling that out of nowhere and shoving the words in my mouth. There are regions that have different factors that influence their production and markets, and that also have different class structures. It's plain old human geography. It is not such a complicated idea that, for instance, watersheds are more spontaneous/natural ways that people organize themselves, compared to latitudinal/longitudinal rectangles.
Granted, we do see some state borders that are formed by rivers and mountains. Those are the more stable ones.
You seem to be pretty confident that if the federal government (and armed forces) collapsed, that the factors that caused this would leave the state governments untouched. I guarantee you that many state governments (if not the majority of them) are way less stable than the federal government. And you seem to take it for granted that not only would the National Guard be in full operational order, but also ready and willing to engage in battle with and fire on their own citizens.
Let me give you a hypothetical if you want to knock it out. Federal government dissolves or weakens, and then the eastern 2/3 of both Washington and Oregon secede from their respective states. What happens next? Do the governments in Olympia and Portland engage in military campaigns to bring back the status quo ante of imaginary lines on a map?
deleted by creator
There are connections between places, largely resulting from terrain and biomes and climate, that matter much more than imaginary straight lines on a map. People naturally associate with others in their locality (<50 mile radius or so). For associations beyond that, geography matters much more than arbitrary straight lines. In the case of Africa which is not united by a single language, language is another thing that influences how close the association between neighboring countries is. If you were to forget the associations that American history primes you with, and then look at the physical map of the continent, you probably wouldn't divide it up the way it is now. You'd probably have the Appalachians separate from the east coast, and split each coast up into at least 2 parts at the climatic dividing line. You'd also see a continuity between the Rio Grande valley and northern Mexico. American Nations is one of the books that helped me develop a constructivist understanding of geography and anthropology instead of an essentialist one understanding.
Because the state governments are not independent of the federal government, and more importantly, the factors that would collapse the fed would also put very heavy strain on the states. You're assuming a situation that's like a person being killed by an explosion, but their brain and heart and lungs and stomach and liver and intestines all staying intact. What rips apart the whole is going to rip apart (at least some of) the components.
Why would they do it to keep the imaginary line in place though? What matters is securing population centers and resource flows.
The Great Basin is too dry for farming. Between the eastern edge of the Great Plains (concentrations of population in a north-south belt across SD, NE, IA, KS, MO, and OK) and the Western Rockies, you either have extremely unsustainable megafarms, or tiny individuals hanging on here and there, or nothing at all. The Malheur standoff was over grazing rights. I think you'd do well to read stuff about geography.