Is it appropriate to resubmit a revised paper to the journal that rejected it?

[Myword]

     Revive this old thread!
      I totally revised an old article into 2 very different articles. I emailed one editor who desk rejected it last year. No response, so I assume the answer is negative. I'd like to think the email went into his spam folder.
I know it is not usual, but do you ever query editors in humanities (or like areas) before submitting it to them. This may save much needless waiting for a rejection. But it is easy for the assistant not to answer or the editor to say no automatically. Would you send an abstract? Seems editors often ignore queries, especially if they're not interested. An email takes only a few minutes. It is impolite not to answer. Even worse if you send your article to a non-English nation as I did. (Article was untranslated.)
   I agree with a member who said that this is more about the subject of the article than its quality. The right place at the good time with the right editor.
   

[Sun_Worshiper]

In my field it would bet desk rejected, unless the paper was different enough that you could convincingly say it was a new piece. 

[research_prof]

Depends. Some journals actually tell you whether you are allowed to do that. Your best bet is to send an email to the EiC and ask.

[Myword]

In my field, even when the article is new, editors do not answer my queries.
So they are not interested, but it takes only a couple minutes to write back.
Nor do they answer followup questions or reminders. I do this to know whether the subject of the article is publishable and desired at this time. Or because I am not well known or connected to a estimable university.
"Blind reviews" are not totally blind, of course. It's a myth.

Hey, we could try the opposite approach. Find out exactly what topics editors want, and write your article or research on that. (Writers for nonacademic magazines do this.)