If the U.S. has another civil war?

[nikimcbee]

I am not saying that slavery was not an issue in the civil war. However, remember that history is written by the "victor", and a close study will show that there were more factors than just slavery involved. Slavery was an economic engine at the time, so by definition it had to be in part about slavery.

You are correct. Everybody needs to read "Battle Cry Of Freedom." The politics in the country from the 1840s thru 1861 are really intersting. Slavery is a big issue, but it's not the only one driving things.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

You are correct. Everybody needs to read "Battle Cry Of Freedom." The politics in the country from the 1840s thru 1861 are really intersting. Slavery is a big issue, but it's not the only one driving things.

The problem has never been northerners who insist that slavery was the only issue. I've never met one yet. The problem stems from southerners who keep insisting that it was not an issue at all. Haplo is not one of those, but most you run into in these arguments are.

[Schöneboom]

One of the more fanciful alternative maps of N. America, from "Crimson Skies":



Hmm, looks like the Republic of Texas annexed Oklahoma. Hope that's OK with you, John.

I think the first state that deserves independence is Hawaii, because of its unique status as a sovereign nation, overthrown by the U.S. in 1893. There are, of course, serious hurdles to be overcome in this case, rather like a messy divorce.

Regarding the U.S. position, there's the little matter of what to do with Pearl Harbor. I'm sure even the various sovereignty advocates don't all agree on whether to evict the Navy, charge rent for continued use of Pearl, or some other arrangement. Indeed, they are not in agreement on whether to restore the Monarchy, if it's even feasible.

If the U.S. were broke enough to allow Hawaiian independence, it might also be willing to sell off its older military equipment to form the basis of a Hawaiian Defense Force. That would assume sufficiently friendly relations between the two nations to maintain such equipment. Present-day demographics of Hawaii would tend to favor an amicable separation (they could have full custody of Obama, too).

[Raptor1]

Originally Posted by Schöneboom

Hmm, looks like the Republic of Texas annexed Oklahoma. Hope that's OK with you, John.

The map is incorrect, Oklahoma is a 'protectorate' of Texas in the same way that the Outer Banks are a protectorate of Dixie. Not that that means too much .

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The problem has never been northerners who insist that slavery was the only issue. I've never met one yet. The problem stems from southerners who keep insisting that it was not an issue at all. Haplo is not one of those, but most you run into in these arguments are.

It seems like every 6 months or so, we have this discussion. I have no personal/emotional attachment to either side, as my family was "out West" or not in the country yet. So my family missed out on the fun. I do find the Southern view of the War intreging (sans slavery issue).

[gimpy117]

highly doubtful. the idea of "sate identity" is not as defined as it was in 1861. Furthermore the idea of the "states being outraged" is an attempt by the GOP to cook up outrage

[CaptainHaplo]

One of the more fanciful alternative maps of N. America, from "Crimson Skies":

Oh man - I loved that game. I even hex edited my custom planes to make em nearly invincible just for fun once!

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Schöneboom

I think the first state that deserves independence is Hawaii, because of its unique status as a sovereign nation, overthrown by the U.S. in 1893. There are, of course, serious hurdles to be overcome in this case, rather like a messy divorce.

One serious hurdle to jump would be to figure out who exactly would you turn these island over too, the dominate population is Anglo-Europeans, Japanese, Chinese and Korean. There are no true 'Hawaiians' left, they have been killed off or bred out of existence long ago.

[nikimcbee]

Well, now, wait a minute... Here's a real world situation.
Take the gov't action at Waco, TX and escalate the violence. What if a militia group intervened to aid the Branch Dividians? (sp?)

Well I Damned well wouldn't post what I'd do on this
Top Secret Internet thing!
Whatever side I go with?
I'll be reading posts like this and doing my Hunting from there.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by privateer

Well I Damned well wouldn't post what I'd do on this
Top Secret Internet thing!
Whatever side I go with?
I'll be reading posts like this and doing my Hunting from there.

Flee to Canada?

[Cohaagen]

One of the reasons why a right-wing uprising will never occur amongst the masses in the US is because the Tea Baggers, wingnuts, and assorted reactionary fellow travellers are, almost to a man, dedicated cop lovers and soldier worshippers - precisely the two groups who would be tasked with enforcing any proscriptive police-state legislation in such a scenario. That's why the militias and people like Alex Jones cook up these preposterous fantasies about the jackbooted, blue-bereted United Nations stormtroopers falling upon a sleeping America in their helicopters and armoured cars, performing door-to-door gun confiscations and taking the men off to WHO internment camps (fantasies the nuts find perversely satisfying and seem, perhaps, to even secretly wish for)

In this scenario, an organisation which can't even find consensus nor intervene in minor African territorial wars, and that the United States is dismissively contemptuous of 90% of the time, is somehow supposed defeat the richest, most powerful military force in the world, and then occupy its enormous home country. What bollocks.

Moreover, the ease - indeed, popular support - with which things like the PATRIOT Act were passed put lie to the whole idea of the armed US citizenry being an effective safeguard against tyranny. People weaned on the cosy myths of a Revolution won solely by wily mountain men and their Pennsylvania Rifles (the cowardly French armies and Navy and irrelevant Dutch and Spanish now written out of the popular record) would likely find a few problems going up against Abrams with a tricked-out AR-15, as many Iraqis have discovered.

[Sailor Steve]

Spoken like a true Brit.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Spoken like a true Brit.

Yeah 20 years behind the times and unrealistic as Operation Market Garden.

[Cohaagen]

Originally Posted by August

Yeah 20 years behind the times and unrealistic as Operation Market Garden.

Wow. With zingers like that I take it you're a subscriber to MAD magazine.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Spoken like a true Brit.

It certainly couldn't have come from an American. Uncomfortable home truths are difficult to voice when you've been raised in a culture that promotes national exceptionalism as a prime virtue and incontrovertible fact, and regards the Constitution as infallible as Rome. The fact that an armed populace failed to prevent the formation of a standing army, the FBI, BATF, PATRIOT Act, etc. - while allowing them to murder schoolchildren and co-workers with alarming frequency - is pretty obvious to an outsider, if not large numbers of Americans. A look at the MOVE siege and Waco should give a good idea of what happens to dissenters who take on the US government.

That both your responses ignore these points and instead make vague insults based on nationality - including a tasteful reference to a bloody WWII battle, nice one August - gives an idea of the level of self-reflection on offer. Still, it must have been an effort to avoid the inevitable tea-based "I know you are, but what am I?" witticism.