Could an Independent Minnesota Survive?

[Vousielle]

That's why I say the best bet would be to be somewhat self-sufficient. But that would require either a massive population shift to increase agricultural production in the Dakotas or immigration from somewhere for the necessary unskilled labor.

Self-sufficient? Don't make me laugh. Americans don't know the meaning of the word. There is no way they could produce enough by themselves to support anything REMOTELY close to their current standard of living without trade.

To be fair, nobody claimed these Minnesota Free State-ers would be living comfortably.

[Galonica]

It would need the rest of the Old Northwest: Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Michigan was never really part of it.

[West Vandengaarde]

It would need the rest of the Old Northwest: Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Michigan was never really part of it.

That's always a possibility too. I think maybe with all those states it could be a bit more successful, especially with Chicago, but that would stop it from being centered around Minnesota, which was my main point in this.

[Episarta]

Ah, I thought it was closer to 1.5. Oh well, I like to stay in Grand Forks anyway. Minneapolis scares me. Too big for my tastes.

Duluth is the best city in Minnesota :3 but I would never live in the city or any city for that matter.

I've been to Duluth a few times. It was actually quite lovely. The bridges and view of the lake and giant shipping boats was interesting and new. Far different than the flat fields and desolate, frozen grasslands over here.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Self-sufficient? Don't make me laugh. Americans don't know the meaning of the word. There is no way they could produce enough by themselves to support anything REMOTELY close to their current standard of living without trade.

To be fair, nobody claimed these Minnesota Free State-ers would be living comfortably.

It's not so much about them living comfortably. It's about building an actual economy that isn't totally dependent on the U.S.

[Avenio]

Yeah, probably. We might be crazy enough for a Stalinist government if, for example, Santorum becomes president.
I do remember that there was a comment by someone that Minnesota might be taken over by a communist revolution in 1932, so we could just be 80 years late.

If the only way for Minnesota to be independent is if it plowed its own fields with the bones of starved Mid-westerners, it's probably not likely to be a positive, beneficial or long-term affair.

[Ajaria]

I will accept what y'all say about the land having a lot of resources, but is it enough to industrialize it?
I mean, I like "What if's" and Alternates, but this is avoiding so many butterflies that I am just confused on how to approach this.

[I-gloo]

Duluth is the best city in Minnesota :3 but I would never live in the city or any city for that matter.

I've been to Duluth a few times. It was actually quite lovely. The bridges and view of the lake and giant shipping boats was interesting and new. Far different than the flat fields and desolate, frozen grasslands over here.

Ah yes the desolate plains of North Dakota xD I've been there quite often.

Anyway back to the topic: The Dakota-Minnesota state would probably end up Canadian if the US really didn't care.

[Zeppy]

You are no better than the South then.

[Northwest Slobovia]

companies like 3M and General Mills, who, for the sake of the scenario, stay with the state due to historical locations within the state as well as nationalist ties within the corporations.

Hence the problem with the scenario. 3M and General Mills are very large companies. Minnesota is simply not populous enough to support them. Given the US economic embargo, they'd either go broke or leave. Since we're not assuming that a stupidity ray hit Minnesota, they'd leave. Likewise Mayo, and ... what's the name of that speciality truck company in Dodge Center? The Vikes, Twinkies, and Tumbleweeds Timberwolves would all leave for similar reasons: when the rest of the league is in a hostile country, you go where the league is.

The combined Minne-kota would be left with primary industries -- farming and mining -- and would be far poorer than it is today. I suspect that in a few years, they'd be begging for readmission to the union. Sorry.

[Episarta]

You are no better than the South then.

I heard no one say this was about being better than the South, or anyone in particular.

[Pandemicia]

Nope. We (like the vast majority of states) require interstate commerce, which would most likely cease after Minnesota would secede from the Union (assuming Washington would let us) and thusly, Minnesota would not long survive on it's own.

If it ever did secede, I would like to see Minnesota get absorbed into Canada. I like them Canadians. :3

[Nightkill the Emperor]

No.

[Rio Cana]

No.

Next thread.

You said it .

[Finalia]

Yes, just like any place in the world.

Next Thread.

[Vitius]

I respect your curiosity, but the scenario just got ruined by the last part of your post, where companies stay in Minnesota for the sake of history, and when you said it would just be that way in the scenario.

It's like asking: "Could the world survive a meteor rattling towards us in 2012? Oh, and for the sake of the scenario, let's just say that the Earth has developed easy capabilities of firing lasers into space and has a spacenet up and running."

The scenario gets extremely lopsided once you remove realistic factors from the event. As you can see above, the scenario itself is realistic, but it's even more un-realistic making it based off of real-life and then adding something that we wouldn't have.

[Abdju]

Depends on how you define survive. Minnesota has abundant fresh-water, a reasonably productive land and a small population, so self-sufficiency in food would be doable, though a less than amicable climate would mean production would be limited to a fairly basic selection of key foods.

If Canada were on good terms with the state then Minnesota would probably do quite well, since she could export grain through Vancouver or Churchill. If neither Canada nor the US were willing to deal with the state though, it would be reduced to a pretty low standard of living, as the country would be landlocked for all intents and purposes, since being landlocked also means air links with the outside world could not be established without having permission for overflight of US or Canadian territory.

I think that in a scenario like this, of a crazy right-winger in power and Minnesota leaving the US, then becoming a Canadian province would be more plausible than independence.

[Forsher]

I'm really making this based off discussion and personal values/beliefs, but it does of course have the ability to drive a discussion forward in NSG.

Let's say it's November of 2012, and radical candidates have been elected in to the United States Congress as well as in to the White House itself. Minnesota, a rather moderate or left-leaning state by U.S. standards for the most part, has decided it no longer has a place in the Union and decides to peacefully leave, even passing a referendum with the voters of the state to leave the nation which passes with a "Yes" vote in favor of secession with 79% of the votes.

I realize this is already a bit of a stretch, but let's also say that the United States, currently distracted by something else, just lets Minnesota go and lets Puerto Rico take its spot as a state or something so they don't have to bother changing the flag and whatnot. However, they also embargo Minnesota, though this is a unilateral action as Canada for some stupid reason fears Minnesota, who have now been joined by the Dakotas in their secession due to geographic neatness and a somewhat similar culture between these states.

Could Minnesota and the Dakotas, as an independent nation, survive in an international economy as well as being somewhat self-sufficient, or would it collapse as a state?

I say it could, if most agriculture was moved to the Dakotas while Minnesota became the manufacturing center of the new nation due to the fact that Minnesota has Minneapolis, Duluth, etc. as well as companies like 3M and General Mills, who, for the sake of the scenario, stay with the state due to historical locations within the state as well as nationalist ties within the corporations.

Having looked at a map, no. If it wasn't landlocked, yes.

[Cameroi]

an independent anyplace could survive. but not by bashing the diversity upon which their survival depended.

[Blazedtown]

That's why I say the best bet would be to be somewhat self-sufficient. But that would require either a massive population shift to increase agricultural production in the Dakotas or immigration from somewhere for the necessary unskilled labor.

Self-sufficient? Don't make me laugh. Americans don't know the meaning of the word. There is no way they could produce enough by themselves to support anything REMOTELY close to their current standard of living without trade.

As a Minnesotan, I disagree with this 100%. In this situation, the Dakotas join us, that gives us North Dakota's oil and coal fields. We have iron in the north, and some off the best farm land in the country, we export pork, beef, turkey, soybeans, and a lot of other agricultural products. We have several major national corporations based out of the Twin Cities. We produce 75% of the iron ore used in this country.

[The Plutonian Empire]

Heh, this thread reminds me of when I made a Civilization 2 scenario where I took over the state and seceded from the US, and then bringing it up to inter-galactic super-power in the space of 1000 years, under the banner of the NS nation I'm using to post this post.