X Close

America’s destiny lies in the New South Y'all Street is replacing Wall Street

Trump is now a typical Floridian. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Trump is now a typical Floridian. Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg/Getty Images


November 1, 2024   7 mins

Every morning, just as the sun rises, Charleston Harbor hosts a scene of stirring patriotism. There, in the courtyard of Fort Sumter, tourists raise a huge American flag, helped along by a National Park Service ranger. And why not? This, after all, is where the Civil War started more than 160 years ago, and those gigantic Stars and Stripes, 20 feet by 35, confirm the North’s final victory over slavery and the rebs.

Yet if the South was crushed back in 1865, it now holds America’s destiny in its hands. Certainly, that’s clear enough politically: Donald Trump is expected to win every former Confederate state, with erstwhile battlegrounds such as Georgia and North Carolina now tilting to the Republicans. Even Virginia, increasingly dominated by liberal Washington suburbs, could go red too. It’s a similar story at the local level. Except for Richmond, the GOP controls every state house beyond the Mason-Dixon Line. In South Carolina’s General Assembly, the Republicans hold more than twice as many seats as the Democrats.

And if the South is now crucial to the country’s immediate electoral future, broader demographic trends are on its side too. Based on the last census, Texas gained two seats, while Florida and North Carolina each gained one. Accompanied by losses in places such as New York and California, the South is rapidly becoming the most powerful region in the land. Add to that its burgeoning economic strength, and it could soon be more influential than it has been for generations — a shift likely to transform politics, and political culture, right across the nation.

Through the 18th century, the South was central to the American economy. Charleston, an epicentre of the slave trade, was the most prosperous town south of Philadelphia, while South Carolina was among the richest colonial provinces. That wealth allowed the region’s white population to be the wealthiest of the pre-revolutionary era; and self-proclaimed cotton kings to become Old World aristocrats in the swamps and plantations of the New. Stroll the streets of Charleston and you can still see this legacy today. There are elegant mansions, decorated with art, and with silverware imported from Britain. Yet somewhere nearby, their slaves huddled in windowless rooms, forced to suffer the heat and humidity of the South in chains.

It’s ironic that the war the rebels started at Fort Sumter would ultimately destroy the South. That shot heard around the world, courtesy of the Charleston militia in April 1861, would prove no match for the emerging industrial might of the free states in the North. Under blockade from the vastly superior US Navy, buoyant cities like Charleston, Savannah and New Orleans all shrivelled, as the cotton routes to England slammed shut. In 1865, Charleston fell, alongside Fort Sumter. Columbia, the state capital, was razed.

Not that things would improve once the guns fell silent. The Civil War left the South in deplorable shape, becoming in the memorable words of one author the “problem child” of America. Deprived of their slaves, the cotton kings were ruined. Meanwhile many normal Southerners, particularly after Reconstruction, worshipped the memory of the Confederacy while embracing its racist ideology. Across the South, Confederate memorials dotted the landscape; as recently as a few decades ago, Stars and Bars flags were common. All the while, Southerners worshipped Robert E. Lee and the “lost cause” while the beneficiaries of Ulysses S. Grant’s victory dominated the country’s economy, cultural and political life from New England to Oregon.

Here’s another irony: it would be the federal government, and the New Deal it promulgated, that ultimately started the South’s recovery. Roosevelt’s funding of roads, bridges and ports finally prodded the region into the 20th century. Often backed by Southern Democrat politicians, the scale of this assistance was monumental: in South Carolina alone, New Dealers created the state park system, hung telephone lines, and worked with farmers on soil conservation. The industrial boom of the Second World War also brought bases and vast manufacturing facilities. In Louisiana, to give one example, upwards of 30,000 New Orleanians worked at the Higgins boatyard, producing the thousands of landing craft needed to start the liberation of Europe on D-Day.

Through the Fifties and Sixties, meanwhile, industry began relocating to the South, where unions were weak and costs lower. An influx of go-getting outsiders helped too, remote as they were from the Old South and its neuroses. One good example is John Paul Rousakis, Savannah’s Greek-American mayor for five terms from 1970. Rousakis played a critical role in reviving Savannah’s waterfront, helping preserve what may well be the most beautiful urban landscape in America. Houston, for its part, enjoyed the services of Bob Lanier, a product of blue collar Baytown. Embracing progressive, pro-business policies, Lanier took full advantage of the city’s burgeoning oil industry.

Another newcomer would transform Charleston. An Irish Catholic, Joseph P. Riley was mayor of the city for four decades. Cultivating the support of newly enfranchised African-Americans, as well as local business elites, he turned a declining, crime-infested city into a model of urban renaissance. Riley improved law and order by appointing Reuben Greenberg as police chief in 1982. Another riposte to the South’s racial cliches — he was a half Jewish, half black Houstonian — Greenberg both reclaimed the streets and beclowned Charleston’s remaining substrate of white nationalists. After personally leading the protection of a Ku Klux Klan march, the men in white pillow cases were sure never to return.

Change happened at the state level too. From Texas to Florida, many belatedly began mimicking their Northern rivals: bringing minorities into leadership positions; financing the growth of major universities; building first-class industrial parks. “The development model has turned on its head,” noted Christopher Lloyd, president of the Site Selection Guild, adding that they’re borrowing the same Californian model that proved so successful in the second half of the last century.

No less important, this legacy has continued into our own time. From manufacturing to professional services, sectors long centred in California and New York have ventured south. According to a recent analysis by Zen Business, indeed, Texas and Florida are now the country’s high-growth hotspots, while they also attract the most tech workers. That’s unsurprising: from HP Enterprise to Oracle to SpaceX, many of America’s biggest firms have relocated to Texas.

Even finance, practically synonymous with Manhattan, is drifting south. Attracted by hot weather and sandy beaches, many bankers have made their home in Miami, even as Dallas lately dethroned Chicago as the second financial centre in the country. Entrepreneurs have even started raising funds to build a new stock exchange in Texas. Their goal? Replacing Wall Street with Y’all Street.

Beyond the South’s own pro-business policies, the relative decline of places like Chicago is telling in other ways. Between soaring taxes and draconian climate change rules, Democratic strongholds in the North seem desperate to bankrupt themselves. No wonder one recent study found that the best states for industry are generally found in the southeast, even as America’s fastest growing ports are places like Corpus Christi (Texas) and Mobile (Alabama).

Not that Dixie’s economic revival can only be traced through industrial output. For just as Rousakis and Riley reshaped and modernised their cities, millions of other Americans found their land of opportunity in the once-distressed South. In 1861, when Fort Sumter was attacked, the South was home to barely nine million of the country’s 31 million residents, and even that included 3.5 million slaves. Today, though, the former Confederacy boasts 40% of the US population, up from less than a third in 1950. This trend has accelerated since the pandemic. By 2023, population growth across just five Southern states, exceeded that of the other 44 combined.

Once again, the North slumps as the South soars. New Jersey, Illinois and New York have since all lost people since 2000, even as Texas gained three million. This isn’t just a function of internal migration either: three Southern cities — Miami, Dallas and Houston — have seen their foreign-born populations rise more than anywhere else. No less striking, these trends seem set to continue over the years ahead. In a recent survey identifying the five best regions for young job seekers, four were in the South, even as Southerners are more likely to have children than their Northern peers.

“Once again, the North slumps as the South soars.”

Apart from anything else, these demographic shifts are exploding old stereotypes. What started with Reuben Greenberg is just as true today: by some accounts Houston is the most diverse city in the country, while African-Americans are returning to the region their grandparents fled during the Great Migration. Overall, minorities generally enjoy higher incomes and home ownership levels here than elsewhere. And whatever Brooklyn liberals might imagine, the South is now among the least segregated parts of the country. To be sure, class divides exist. But in Charleston, successful African-Americans can be found eating at some of the swankiest restaurants, often with white friends. Like low country cuisine, encompassing African, English and Caribbean influences, this is a city that feels more racially harmonious than Northern towns from Milwaukee to Buffalo.

More to the point, these comings and goings are conjuring a political storm. More people means more representation in Congress, and more electoral votes. And if current trends continue — and the South continues to rise and places like Illinois keep falling — Dixie will have 30 more seats in the House of Representatives than it did in the Seventies. Once that happens, it will again emerge as the country’s strongest political region, a role it hasn’t enjoyed since that long-lost world of frock coats and slave markets.

Not that we need to wait for redistricting to spot the South’s political heft. After all, a second Trump administration would surely draw strength from the region’s ascendancy. Trump himself is now a typical Floridian — from Queens — and J.D. Vance hails from the essentially Southern culture of Appalachia. More to the point, likely boosts in defence and space spending under a Republican president would supercharge the region yet further, as would pro-manufacturing policies using tariffs and tough trade deals to replace foreign products with domestic alternatives. There’ll also be pressure to develop policies that help the less successful Southern states such as Louisiana and Mississippi, not least given they’re such Republican strongholds.

Given her probable plans to bailout profligate Northern states, a Harris presidency would probably be less good for Dixie. Then again, the region’s demographic fortunes offer opportunities to Democrats too: as both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton so vividly proved. In this New South, a dynamic, multicultural region with ample hope for the future, liberals could gain much by opposing strict bans on abortion, especially if they dump unpopular virtue-signalling around things like migration. To put it differently, then, the South’s revival may yet dovetail with a much-needed return to the political centre. Given the region’s turbulent past, that would be the most welcome irony of all.


Joel Kotkin is a Presidential Fellow in Urban Futures at Chapman University and a Senior Research Fellow at the Civitas Institute, the University of Texas at Austin.

joelkotkin

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

15 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 month ago

You’ve put a red pen through John Grisham’s business model. He’ll have to relocate his shonky politicians, shysters and white trash to where they really belong, Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.

mike flynn
mike flynn
1 month ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

And we both know he could have done that 50 years ago. But did not.

Bernard Brothman
Bernard Brothman
1 month ago

Sooner or later, either Illinois, New Jersey, California or New York, will reach a fiscal cliff where the state cannot pay its obligations, and seems to have maxed out on taxing its citizens.
If the Democrats are in full control in Washington, then there will be a state rescue plan – probably under a guise to save democracy and all that. If the Republican are in full control or have a blocking position, then if one of these states defaults on its debt, there will be painful reckoning and more residents will leave that state and most likely move south.

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 month ago

Part of this is due to people voting with their feet. Blue bastions are bleeding population every year. Why is that? Of course, it can’t be the one-party rule that has created the discontent. That’s not to say that a red-run place is perfect but patterns exist for reasons.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago

draconian climate change rules, Democratic strongholds in the North seem desperate to bankrupt themselves. No wonder one recent study found that the best states for industry are generally found in the southeast…”

This is an example of short-term thinking, dominated by the value of private profit over all else. It indulges in the fantasy that the effects of climate change won’t affect deregulated regions, anywhere. No place will be spared.

It’s fine to criticize policy, and execution. But that does not mean downplaying the critical importance of global warming and the need to deal with it quickly and effectively.

From the author’s reference, a study he co-authored:

With carbon capture/sequestration or other new technologies, this would allow for a zero emission future without gambling on unproven and unreliable energy sources

There it is, the common fantasy of “other new technologies” that are going to save the day. And notice the contradiction: putting faith in these “new” technologies is not “gambling,” but putting faith in the development of existing ones is.

Follow the money:

“Our generous donors include venture capitalists Andy and David Horowitz… real estate entrepreneurs Irv and Ryan Chase… the timely support from the Southern California Gas Company”

Alex Lekas
Alex Lekas
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Who should we trust to “deal with” climate change, the elected officials and bureaucrats who largely fail in doing the basics of their jobs? Tell me what they have done to earn your trust in their ability to manage your life better than you can.

Lesley van Reenen
Lesley van Reenen
1 month ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

And you could write ‘who should we trust to deal with “climate change”’.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  Alex Lekas

Individuals can’t do much to deal with the climate emergency, it takes collective action, and governments and intergovernmental bodies are the public forces of scale necessary.

The idea of asking government to earn my trust in their ability to manage my life is a straw man point. We organize collectively — the “government” — to plan and manage on larger scales, from municipal to state to federal.

People have been trained to hate government. They assert things like “largely fail to do their jobs,” but never accompany this by evidence. At best they’ll tell you anecdotes, usually free of context.

As mentioned, it’s fine to criticize policy and execution. I’m all in favour of refinement, of correction when needed. I’m also aware that the author of this article is paid by the fossil fuel industry. Buyer beware. Given that blatant conflict of interest, he cannot earn trust in the ability to either understand or to honestly communicate the context of climate change, or to recommend policies to deal with it.

Upton Sinclair’s old saw: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew

Net Zero policies are failing everywhere. It’s almost not worth having an argument about it – the facts are clear. The Chinese and Qataris have correctly said, in terms, that the world will be reliant on hydrocarbons for many more decades, including steel and concrete manufacture, most transport and agriculture.

We can’t enforce an “energy transition” by government fiat. Those who recognise this will prosper – those who don’t will hugely increase their energy and production costs, and will not. You simply cannot do it all with wind and solar, as the Green fantasists claim. We have a tiny fraction of electricity storage storage capacity necessary.

Human beings will adapt, as we always have. Not many Dutch people drown and even the numbers of Bangladeshis dying in flooding had massively decreased, not increased. Fewer people are dying as a result of wild fires, and in any case many more people die of cold than heat! The richer we are, the more resilient and safer we are.

If the West wants to transfer even more of its industry to China and other developing countries than it already has, Net Zero policies are the way to go.

Andrew
Andrew
1 month ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

There they are, the old “not many Dutch people drown” combined with “lower numbers of Bangladeshis dying in flooding” talking points. Straight out of the “muddy the waters” playbook, first formulated by Big Tobacco, and taken up by Big Oil.

Drowning is neither the only threat for the Netherlands, nor is it the most relevant. The concern isn’t only for what’s happening today, it’s also about conditions in the coming years. Currently, the Dutch face a significant threat to fresh water supply, related to climate change. Saltwater is leaching into groundwater and rivers. It used to get carried off by rivers and rain, but that process is declining due to prolonged droughts and relatively low river discharge. The Dutch are using sand to hold the coastline, make higher and wider dikes, reinforce dunes and surge barriers, locks, etc. They’ll need to bring in enormous amounts of sand from elsewhere given that what they can dredge or dig from the North Sea is limited. 

Lower deaths in Bangladesh: the biggest danger is rising sea levels, not monsoon flooding. But with regard to floods, the death rate isn’t the only important metric: people are losing everything as their land and holdings are ruined. They’re forced to leave, becoming refugees. There are many serious side effects of this, including health, impoverishment, strained government resources. This is because Bangladesh faces not only the threat of a rising sea level but also extreme weather events and shifting patterns of rainfall.

Humans will adapt? And you deride fantasists! How cavalier you are about the lives of future generations, whose fate is entirely in our hands. Even if you personally don’t want to think about the possibility of collapsing civilization, it is reckless to ignore the precautionary principle when it won’t be you but today’s children and in turn their children who will reap whatever we sow. Their welfare, the love I feel for them, are values I choose not to put prices on.

China, you say? In 2023 China counted for 57% of all new solar power installations in the world, and this year’s pace is working out the same. Xi Jinping’s goal, announced in 2020, was 1,200 Gw of wind & solar by 2030. China has already reached that goal, six years in advance. It would be more effective to compete with China than to complain about China, but complaining is easier.

Costs? Look up the cost of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry. Then look up the costs of the threat multiplier of rapid climate change (insurance companies sure know it). Once you’re informed about this context, the relative cost of developing and transitioning to alternative energy will have the necessary perspective.

Kent Ausburn
Kent Ausburn
1 month ago

No mention of of the technology that possibly more than anything is responsible for the population explosion in the southern US, air conditioning.

Luke Lea
Luke Lea
1 month ago
Reply to  Kent Ausburn

You’re right about AC.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 month ago

Brits and foreigners do not realise that the old Confederate America is effectively a ” different nation” and all things ” American” that Europeans see is a microcosm of NY and LA exported

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
1 month ago

As a life long southerner, born and bred in GA, I can attest to the excitement that is present in the Southeast. The economic opportunities, the freedom, the slower pace of life, the rapid development and growth, everything a young up and comer could wish for.

Luke Lea
Luke Lea
1 month ago

Little known fact: Jews have always been welcome in the South. Their talents were recognized, and needed.
The infamous Leo Frank case was the exception that proved the rule.