If the U.S. has another civil war?

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?"

[krashkart]

The question;

You live in a State that has seceded from the Union, Would you feel your loyalty was with the Federal Government and the primary responsibility was was to preserve the Union, or would you take the side of the State that.

Neither. If it really came down to that, neither side would garner my sympathies.

[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.

[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????

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

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

Depends on if the guy has money and or looks...

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

"Who are the Britons?"

Is that a trick question?

[Schöneboom]

I consider the State vs. Federal civil war scenario implausible, given the way people seem to be nowadays: dumbed-down, politically fragmented or apathetic, and self-centered.

If the masses are not driven by traditional state loyalties or ideological movements (as in, say, the 1930s), this is something we might be thankful for. No sane person would want to take part in something like the Spanish Civil War, in which vast numbers of people slaughtered each other with the righteousness of True Believers.

What is more likely in our case: a failed state scenario, in which the masses clamor for immediate relief (jobs, money, food), government at every level can barely maintain order and basic services, and violent fanatical fringe groups create havoc without popular support.

Sorry, not exactly a cheerful Christmas Eve message.

[John W. Hamm]

Thank you all so much for replying, There are so many great opinions here! and I knew that this community would have some of the most thought out ones that I could hope for.

To this point in the last 6 years several states have sent to the federal congress and affirmation of States sovereignty, ranging from a plethora of positions... But in general saying that they would not recognize certain laws (not all of these states necessarily making the exact same statements) if the federal gov't tried to inact them or if they tried to implement certain laws...

Given these affirmations that were sent by the States to the fed it made me curious as to how the individuals felt rather than just the politicians...

It is my personal belief that the State should and does have the sovereign right to make all laws concerning the people in that state...

It is my understanding that is how our forefathers felt as well... Case in point... There is no federal law against murder... (except for government employees).

From what I remember in Government classes is that the fed is responsible for regulating national and international trade... as well as international affairs... oh and lets not forget the enforcement of the constitution, but aside from that all other aspects of government that deal with the populace should be dealt with on a State level... one main reason for that is birds of a feather flock together...

I live in Oklahoma and I know for a fact that there are several laws enacted in California that no one I know that lives here would ever want to live by... and vice versa...

I myself do not think there would be a civil war per say... but if these states that have sent a notice of sovereignty to the fed actually follow up with perseverance and refuse to enforce federal laws that they feel overstep the feds boundaries... well I have no idea how it would turn out .... but i thank you all for giving your opinions they have been helpful.

[nikimcbee]

I could see the West suceding (sp?), NOT including Kali- oregon, and Washington. Althought I clould see Eastern WA and OR splitting off to form their own state.

Interesting topic though. I think we are too lazy to do anything about, except for TX. Ore-gone wouldn't leave the union, because they like their timber welfare too much.

Utah could make Kali-fornia collapse within a week by shutting of the power and water.

I could see the South formining the Evangelical States of America.