So I was looking at an ancient thread I started here in Before 1900 way back in 2009 concerning what would happen if all the states went independent in 1790. One of the issues brought up involved how the New England states would likely get together, the Southern states, etc., and that led to a separate comment on how the North would go more Federalist and the South more Democratic-Republican.
My question now, then, is if this would really be true. Supposing a Southern Country is formed anytime after the American Revolution, but not long after the Constitutional Convention, would it necessarily develop in the way it did OTL? Many early Southerners were Federalists themselves, including John C. Calhoun who became the champion of 'Southern state's rights'. It seems to me that the path taken by the South in OTL, particularly one agitating for state's rights, is a product of a union with the North and the slavery issue. Would a country that is only Southern really develop this antipathy to centralized government when said government is not influenced by northern agitation?
Feel free to postulate on how the Northern country would develop politically as well!
My question now, then, is if this would really be true. Supposing a Southern Country is formed anytime after the American Revolution, but not long after the Constitutional Convention, would it necessarily develop in the way it did OTL? Many early Southerners were Federalists themselves, including John C. Calhoun who became the champion of 'Southern state's rights'. It seems to me that the path taken by the South in OTL, particularly one agitating for state's rights, is a product of a union with the North and the slavery issue. Would a country that is only Southern really develop this antipathy to centralized government when said government is not influenced by northern agitation?
Feel free to postulate on how the Northern country would develop politically as well!