Potential Civil War?

[master_catholic]

I’m just curious - given the divide that the US is in today, how likely or unlikely that we could, given 5,10,20,30,40,50 years from now, we could go through another civil war? Who would the sides be? Which states would suceed?

Why do I entertain this thought? Well logically, if a people get tired of a at least seemingly incompent and corrupt government, how long will a nation’s people’s paitience last?

I’d just like other people to observe what they’ve noticed and if it’s a trend to watch out for.

 

[stbruno]

Not going to happen in my opinion. Doesn’t mean we still won’t have differences of opinion, but it’s not going to happen.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I’m just curious - given the divide that the US is in today, how likely or unlikely that we could, given 5,10,20,30,40,50 years from now, we could go through another civil war? Who would the sides be? Which states would suceed?

Why do I entertain this thought? Well logically, if a people get tired of a at least seemingly incompent and corrupt government, how long will a nation’s people’s paitience last?

I’d just like other people to observe what they’ve noticed and if it’s a trend to watch out for.

zero chance. all you’re seeing is business as usual: the right amount of competence, mixed with an acceptable level of incompetence and other government misconduct, effective dissent limited to one of two very centrist parties, strong committment to capitalism by everyone, including the workers. nobody takes wannabe revolutionaries seriously in the US.

 

[melensdad]

I’m just curious - given the divide that the US is in today. . .

Why do I entertain this thought? Well logically, if a people get tired of a at least seemingly incompent and corrupt government, how long will a nation’s people’s paitience last?

What “divide” are you speaking about?

We are a very diverse society, yet despite many differences we also have many similarities that bind us together.

For example take a look at gun owners. They are Democrats & Republicans. They are Young & Old. They are Wealthy & Poor. They are Gay & Straight. They are Catholic & Athiest. They are Men & Women. Sure there are a lot of little divisions but also a lot of similarities. This holds true with most ways that you come up with to categorize people.

 

[KarenNC]

Well, the only folks I have seen talking about secession are some rather fringe groups, ironically on opposite ends of the spectrum.

christianexodus.org/ wants to populate SC with its adherents, then secede as an independent Christian (their version) nation. I rather think SC has a good enough memory for what happened the last time it seceded…

vermontrepublic.org/ wants to have Vermont secede and be independent because of objections to what they see as a one-party government and takeover by corporate America.

In poking around, there are other small groups
secessionist.us/ has a list of links.

 

[carl_catholic]

Not a very good chance of secession happening, remember any state that even would try that would have to remember that the Fed’s have thousands of nukes…

 

[BlestOne]

Not a very good chance of secession happening, remember any state that even would try that would have to remember that the Fed’s have thousands of nukes…

All you have to remember is that if Fed govt cut off all funds to any given state, they would come back like whipped puppies… not to mention, if they refused to defend (yes, fed gov’t as in the military could stop protecting a state that succeeded) every terrorist group would want to move in to get close to the US.

 

[carl_catholic]

All you have to remember is that if Fed govt cut off all funds to any given state, they would come back like whipped puppies

um, if they seceded they wouldn’t even need funds since they would be their own country, plus most states who secede would no doubt want to create a free-market economy.

not to mention, if they refused to defend (yes, fed gov’t as in the military could stop protecting a state that succeeded) every terrorist group would want to move in to get close to the US.

Not only is that idea ridiculous like some badly written Tom Clancey novel, but you forgot about right to arms and militias, both of which would be prized and needed for any secession attempt.

 

[melensdad]

Seems to me that we have a couple different issues here.

First is the LIKELYHOOD of a civil war. I still say NONE.

Second is the DESIRE for succession. Yes there are groups that are on the fringe that have the desire to form their own independent republics. They are small when compared to the general population.

Third is the MECHANISM for succession. It is legally possible for a state to succeed from the union. It would not require a militia, nor would nukes be used as a real threat to maintain the state. But the process would take YEARS and YEARS to accomplish, but it could be done peacefully. It is, however, completely unlikely.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Seems to me that we have a couple different issues here.

First is the LIKELYHOOD of a civil war. I still say NONE.

Second is the DESIRE for succession. Yes there are groups that are on the fringe that have the desire to form their own independent republics. They are small when compared to the general population.

Third is the MECHANISM for succession. It is legally possible for a state to succeed from the union. It would not require a militia, nor would nukes be used as a real threat to maintain the state. But the process would take YEARS and YEARS to accomplish, but it could be done peacefully. It is, however, completely unlikely.

Respectfully, it’s secede and secession, not succeed and succession. I don’t mean to embarrass you, and apologize if I have, but I felt this ought to be corrected before the thread gets too far along.

Sorry; English teacher.

Peace,
Dante

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Highly doubtful given just differences of opinion right now.

Now, if the US Dollar keeps dropping like a rock and we have a massive government collapse, who knows what will happen. As long as there is no major economic collapse we will be fine but any problems after that would be different and not fit the 1860’s Civil War model.

 

[Rolltide]

Not a very good chance of secession happening, remember any state that even would try that would have to remember that the Fed’s have thousands of nukes…

Of course if North Dakota could secede, and figure out it’s nuclear launch codes, then it would be the 4th most heavily armed nation on Earth…

 

[heisenburg]

We have a bloodless civil war every four years…

Some times the ruling party defeats, other times defeated…

(if you don’t like the way government is run… do something. Get petitions going, run for local elections… become part of the bloodless revolution… not just an armchair quarterback)

In Christ

 

[Jack_Fisher]

…
Third is the MECHANISM for succession. It is legally possible for a state to succeed from the union. It would not require a militia, nor would nukes be used as a real threat to maintain the state. But the process would take YEARS and YEARS to accomplish, but it could be done peacefully. It is, however, completely unlikely.

what is that legal mechanism? a constitutional convention? an amendment?

there aren’t any militias today (in the constitutitional sense, that is, anyone can call himself the “King of Siam” but that don’t make it so).

 

[Jack_Fisher]

… forgot about … militias, both of which would be prized and needed for any secession attempt.

there aren’t any militias. militias are a creation of Congress under Article I, Sec. 8:

“…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; … .”

this is fortunate, considering the yahoos who call themselves militias, give themselves ranks like “sergeant general” and run around in the woods playing with guns and scaring hunters.

 

[melensdad]

Respectfully, it’s secede and secession, not succeed and succession. I don’t mean to embarrass you. . .
Sorry; English teacher.

Never said I could spell, thanks for the correction. The facts remain the same.
Jack Fisher:

what is that legal mechanism? a constitutional convention? an amendment?

In fact it would be first ratification at state level, then at national level. As I earlier said, legally possible, not actually practical or probable.

 

[master_catholic]

I guess that if we were to have civil war II, it would be with the conservative middle states vrs the liberal coastal states. If our government gets too “conservative” for the liberals, they might seceed. Or it could go the other way around. And what would the core issue? Abortion & the other moral issues, just like the civil war was about slavery.

any thoughts on this scenario?

 

[Jack_Fisher]

I guess that if we were to have civil war II, it would be with the conservative middle states vrs the liberal coastal states. If our government gets too “conservative” for the liberals, they might seceed. Or it could go the other way around. And what would the core issue? Abortion & the other moral issues, just like the civil war was about slavery.

any thoughts on this scenario?

I disagree. its a mistake to assume that the civil war was fought “about” the single moral issue of slavery and then conclude that the issue of abortion could lead to a new civil war.

the CW had many causes, and the nation was deeply divided along regional lines that overlapped economic interests. slavery was a trigger, but the end/preservation of slavery was not the initial goal of the combatants. remember lincoln said he would preserve the Union by freeing all, some or no slaves. by war’s end, the moral issue had risen to prominence. slavery was illegal even before war’s end.

 

[master_catholic]

I disagree. its a mistake to assume that the civil war was fought “about” the single moral issue of slavery and then conclude that the issue of abortion could lead to a new civil war.

Well I know there were other issues that contributed to the stress between north and south during the CW, but slavery was at least a big rallying cry. Abortion is the one that most closely parallels that scenario today, though perhaps not as much as slavery did. Also, Abortion isn’t the ONLY factor today as well (i.e. gay marriage, government corruption, communist america, eroding of the constitution, euphanasia, abusive supreme court, etc.)

the CW had many causes, and the nation was deeply divided along regional lines that overlapped economic interests. slavery was a trigger, but the end/preservation of slavery was not the initial goal of the combatants. remember lincoln said he would preserve the Union by freeing all, some or no slaves. by war’s end, the moral issue had risen to prominence. slavery was illegal even before war’s end.

And like the CW the potential CW2 will require some sort of buildup. Also what’s interesting to note, is that like today, the supreme court made an unconstitutional judgement in the Dred Scott case that rendered blacks to “property.” That was one of the starters that really divided the nation leading to the CW. Now today we have Roe V. Wade and the like, although the recent seat replacements may calm things down a bit should they judge rightly. Can you see at least some sort of pattern?

Liberals I think, are quite capable of spliting the nation. If they sense an actuall political defeat, like majorly speaking, they may do something drastic. Or we will if they get way too much the upper hand and start taking everyone’s rights away.

 

[Jack_Fisher]

… eroding of the constitution, … .

I don’t agree with you, but I’m curious by what you mean by eroding of the constitution.