If the U.S. has another civil war?

[yubba]

I sugguest you bone up on your Mad Max and Red Dawn. I don't know how the Fed thinks they are going to regulate all this junk with, no money to enforce. Remember tomorrows currency might be Beans and Bullets.

[TLAM Strike]

I think if there was a civil war it would be over so fast most would be wonder what the heck just happened.

And it not going to be fought by a bunch of country yokels with their 30-06s. Its going to be fought by geeks with laptops. Its going to be an digital and information war; Tweets are bullets, thumb drives are smart bombs. Look at Iran this year, the contested elections a bunch of students with camera phones turned the world's attention to their governments abuses. No matter how their government tried to shut them down they found a link to the outside world, and what they filmed became headline news. Second the Suxnet virus, a few lines of code potentially crippled a nuclear weapons program, imagine what something like that could do to a power grid or air traffic control system.

I wouldn't fight I'd grab my girl and take off to Europe or something. Just because I live in amerika doesn't mean I'm loyal to it.

[CaptainHaplo]

It won't happen - for one reason. Who is going to fight it?

From the scenario you gave, the federal gov't. is going to use military force against the states. It would find the military would not be amendable to firing on civilians en masse to pacify the states. Nor does the political will by the people in any region exist that would allow for such a thing.

In the US Civil war, there were significant economic reasons behind the north wanting to invade the south. By conquering the south, the Northern rich could purchase through the spoils of war property in the south that, upon rebuilding - would bring them significant profit.

There is no such economic factor in place. Thus, there is no political will. Without this, the government would face revolt without geographic boundaries, and a revolt by the people at that level would bring the gov't to its knees, because its funding comes from the people.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

It won't happen - for one reason. Who is going to fight it?

From the scenario you gave, the federal gov't. is going to use military force against the states. It would find the military would not be amendable to firing on civilians en masse to pacify the states. Nor does the political will by the people in any region exist that would allow for such a thing.

In the US Civil war, there were significant economic reasons behind the north wanting to invade the south. By conquering the south, the Northern rich could purchase through the spoils of war property in the south that, upon rebuilding - would bring them significant profit.

There is no such economic factor in place. Thus, there is no political will. Without this, the government would face revolt without geographic boundaries, and a revolt by the people at that level would bring the gov't to its knees, because its funding comes from the people.

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by August

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

Try asking that of any Iranians that came over here after 1979. Or the Vietnamese and Hmong who came here in the early 70s. The list of groups taken in by the US because their country is in a civil war is huge, in fact they are given priority by immigration to live here.

Originally Posted by joegrundman

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

I agree. I really doubt that when Lincoln heard that Fort Sumner was being bombed he immediately thought: "Wow this could be a hell of a business opportunity".

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed.

We already have a arms suppler, its called WalMart.

[Armistead]

The only war we're likely to have is against our government. Really, most the reasons the revolution took place exist now.

Government is at war with the people, they just do it so slowly and count on our stupidity not to do anything about it.

I think as we eventually move into a two class system, you'll see more people doing acts of violence against what they feel is unfair. You'll see more people walking into meetings with guns and shooting away. Some will make heroes out of them, some will call them terrorist.

chaos maybe, no civil war....in the end the strong will weed out the weak so the herd can survive....that's the way it's always been.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

It is. The road to the American Civil War was long and complicated, but the Clff's Notes version is that the southern states (mostly southeastern in the modern US) had a largely agricultural economy. The bulk of the southern wealth was in cotton, which, traditionally, was man-intensive to grow and harvest. With a much lower population than the north, the south relied on African slaves to perform much of the labor. Slavery, of course, was opposed by a number of mostly northern abolitionist politicians. Given the numerical divisions between free and slave-holding states, that opposition could not amount to much, making the situtation one of stasis.

As westward expansion accelerated, prompted by the federal government's efforts to have people 'go west, young man', new states came into the union, which threatened to upset the balance of power. After a series of compromises that, in retrospect, only seemed to exacerbate the problem, Abraham Lincoln was elected as President. Fearful that his adminstration would permanently swing the pendulum in favor of the abolitionists, resulting in the end of slavery and threatening the south's economic system, the southern states undertook the treasonous act of succession.

I have no intention of continuing the argument that will likely follow this post, as we have had it many, many times. Simply stated, Confederate apologists prefer to revise history so that it reads that it was the evil northerners who invaded the peace-loving south in order to plunder it's riches. This is not true, but I am resigned to the fact that attempting to dissuade them of it is a pointless endeavor. It only bears noting that some of the same individuals portray the south's treason in a favorable and heroic light are the same that, in another thread, damn another's treason for an act that can also be seen has heroic.

We are not going to rehash that issue again Takeda, no worries.
Wars are about economics. They are about who controls what, land, power, government or whatever. Show me a war that isn't and I will revise my opinion.

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.

The key in the original post question however remains the same - there is no economic reason to support a federal government that goes to war against its people en masse when such a conflict has no geographical boundaries.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

that would be a...err.. revisionist interpretation?

Anyway as a loyal Briton, I feel sure that we British should seek to arm the rebels in the case of a US Civil War, and this time succeed.

"Who are the Britons?"

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

"Who are the Britons?"

Is that a trick question?

[August]

Originally Posted by Rilder

I wouldn't fight I'd grab my girl and take off to Europe or something. Just because I live in amerika doesn't mean I'm loyal to it.

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

Most countries.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by August

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

you americans took in rupert murdoch

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by August

And what country would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself?

What kind of girl would take a person whose only loyalty is to himself????