Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: taurusowner on October 14, 2010, 12:34:19 PM
-
The Revolutionary War thread brought up an interesting point regarding how people identify themselves in 2011 compared to say, 1776 or 1861. In both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, individual states acted as independent units, and fought as states. The original 13 states all voted as separate sovereign entities to fight the British, and in the Civil War, states succeeded and formed "state units" like the 2nd Maine or the 8th Virginia Calvary Regiment. Citizens of states identified with their state, and were willing to fight against other Americans, because they held their allegiance to their state in higher regard.
Do you think that attitude exists today? Do you think that there are enough Americans who see themselves as citizens of their state first, to the degree that they would be willing to take up arms against other Americans in other states? Consider this for both civilians and members of the US military.
-
I don't see it.
A couple of generations ago, it wasn't uncommon for a person to be born, live, and die without going more than 50 miles from their home; seeing someone from out of state was a novelty. And it wasn't that far a stretch to move from "stranger" to "enemy" when controversial policies were in play.
Today, there's so much more mobility, folks from other states aren't strangers (except maybe for Kalifornians =D ) and an awful lot of people live in more than one state during their lifetimes.
Unless some future fed.gov oversteps and tries to (mis)use the military to impose, well, something on one or more states - say, a post-Katrina NOLA door to door gun grab - I don't see it in anything short of a total collapse.
-
Do you think that attitude exists today? Do you think that there are enough Americans who see themselves as citizens of their state first, to the degree that they would be willing to take up arms against other Americans in other states? Consider this for both civilians and members of the US military.
I don't think that the above scenario is, in our current culture, a valid measure of allegiance/patriotism/what have you. In the nineteenth century, Americans were very familiar with war at home. Washington DC had been burned within the living memory of many people. The Revolution was not that far off. Indian wars were ongoing.
In the twentieth century, we have become accustomed to wars being things that happen elsewhere. Many of us have become accustomed, unfortunately, to warfare and the bearing of arms as something done by other people.
Moreover, I, as a native Michigander, have no reason to take up arms against another state--well, except maybe Illinois. If it would help, I might take up arms to protect the Great Lakes from being laid open to destructive invasive species. However, I don't think that there is any really effective way to do that and war would only increase our vulnerability.
Of course, you can frame any question in such a way that you will only get the answer you are looking for, and my answer is still going to be the same: The question makes too many assumptions and does not therefore support the conclusions drawn from any answer.
-
I think the problem is not that people are less patriotic about their state.
It's certainly not the distances. California is the size of a decent European country.
But it seems to me, almost on every issue, there are people in every state on either side. It wouldn't be not so much Texas vs. California, as people from certain classes and political stripes against people of the opposing faction in the same geographical area, a horrible chain of acction, retaliation, counter-retaliation.
-
I think the problem is not that people are less patriotic about their state.
It's certainly not the distances. California is the size of a decent European country.
But it seems to me, almost on every issue, there are people in every state on either side. It wouldn't be not so much Texas vs. California, as people from certain classes and political stripes against people of the opposing faction in the same geographical area, a horrible chain of acction, retaliation, counter-retaliation.
This.
I don't think it is very common for civil wars to have clear geographic boundaries. If there is to be another conflict it would likely be everyone against everyone else.
-
MB, your point about political intermingling within regions is a good one, but I'd point out that despite the shared proximity to Mexico (and each other), the political climates of AZ and CA are practically inverted images of one another.
We've have boycotts from one to the other, and chuckled threats on our part to stop selling them electricity in response.
Without an over-arching authority (FedGov) it would be very probable that AZ would choose to militarize at least its southern border, and possibly its western (and bottom 1/3 of its eastern) borders as well.
If that over-arching authority continues to abuse/neglect AZ, that may become the next rally cry of a Gubernatorial candidate in 2015.
Such an event, though unlikely, COULD spark an interstate or even state/federal conflict.
Despite the fact that AZ folks by and large, are transplants from other parts of the country (and about 15% or more are illegals... ;/) and aren't native-born to AZ.
States have identities and agendas, still. TX and AZ are two prominent examples, and I'm sure folks could come up with sensitive issues for other States.
-
Everyone/every state seems to have the same problems these days. It would take something pretty big. I could see Arizona invading a few Cali cities. :laugh:
-
I'm going to treat this as a political thread and move it, as I expect it'll likely turn into a discussion about reasoning why such an event could occur.
Remember to keep it civil.
Advocacy of treasonous or illegal actions will be cause for punitive actions.
-
I think the problem is not that people are less patriotic about their state.
It's certainly not the distances. California is the size of a decent European country.
But it seems to me, almost on every issue, there are people in every state on either side. It wouldn't be not so much Texas vs. California, as people from certain classes and political stripes against people of the opposing faction in the same geographical area, a horrible chain of acction, retaliation, counter-retaliation.
I think it'll be mostly THIS. Namely a Goddamn mess. Urban vs. Rural, or even household against household. Think "The Troubles" in Northern Ireland will be more the model than the (first) American Civil War.
MB, your point about political intermingling within regions is a good one, but I'd point out that despite the shared proximity to Mexico (and each other), the political climates of AZ and CA are practically inverted images of one another.
We've have boycotts from one to the other, and chuckled threats on our part to stop selling them electricity in response.
Without an over-arching authority (FedGov) it would be very probable that AZ would choose to militarize at least its southern border, and possibly its western (and bottom 1/3 of its eastern) borders as well.
If that over-arching authority continues to abuse/neglect AZ, that may become the next rally cry of a Gubernatorial candidate in 2015.
Such an event, though unlikely, COULD spark an interstate or even state/federal conflict.
Despite the fact that AZ folks by and large, are transplants from other parts of the country (and about 15% or more are illegals... ;/) and aren't native-born to AZ.
States have identities and agendas, still. TX and AZ are two prominent examples, and I'm sure folks could come up with sensitive issues for other States.
I do agree with your examples though.
So I'll say it's a bit of both, certain states with extremely strong identities, or very uniform beliefs with an overwhelming majority may all be on "one side", although I think aside from nasty political bickering, it'll be more peaceful in these states than the more "purple" ones.... so to speak.
And then on top of it all, you have the groups with very divided loyalties. Like (blue collar) unions for instance. They tend to vote liberal/democratic, however they're also very often above average in being very socially conservative on the flip-side on everything but their union job. How do those blocks react?
Or the Catholic Church (at least in America) very opposed to abortion, and gay rights, but otherwise very socially liberal. The Catholic church is very amenable to the welfare state seeing no difference between it and Christ-like charity.
-
I think there is growing possibility of a "civil" war of some type. I do not, however, believe it will be fought state vs. state. I think an overbearing, intrusive government will be the common enemy and the opponents will be a wild disporia of causes and groups. It is not unlikely to be triggered by some type of SHTF condition that causes an economic meltdown. If this is true .... then the longer it takes to develop the more likely the "civil war" will start.
Right now, there aren't enough people in the hellion bandwagon.
In a couple of years ....... [popcorn]
-
Moreover, I, as a native Michigander, have no reason to take up arms against another state--well, except maybe Illinois.
It wouldn't be not so much Texas vs. California, as people from certain classes and political stripes against people of the opposing faction in the same geographical area, a horrible chain of acction, retaliation, counter-retaliation.
I certainly would not go to war with, say, Michigan, on the sayso of Hizzoner Dick Daley or his doppelganger. They represent what's wrong with this state.
-
A couple of generations ago, it wasn't uncommon for a person to be born, live, and die without going more than 50 miles from their home; seeing someone from out of state was a novelty. And it wasn't that far a stretch to move from "stranger" to "enemy" when controversial policies were in play.
I think this is over-stated.
I'm a pretty good example of the ever-moving American: I have moved states 10 times in my lifetime, with some intra-state moves, too.
Most folk aren't like me. There are whole swaths of folks who never move from the state of their birth.
For instance, much of hte inner-city black underclass doesn't even travel outside their metro area, let alone make interstate trips. Back when the choice was migrate or starve, many moved North. Nowadays, "starve" has been taken off the plate.
Many rural whites are similar, but for family reasons.
I've read bios of some authors who, like Isaac Asimov, rarely ever left the island of Manhattan! Talk about provincial!
OTOH, it is true that many of these folks have no real affinity to their state.
But it seems to me, almost on every issue, there are people in every state on either side. It wouldn't be not so much Texas vs. California, as people from certain classes and political stripes against people of the opposing faction in the same geographical area, a horrible chain of acction, retaliation, counter-retaliation.
I think this is closer to the mark and the effect of any civil war.
I'm going to treat this as a political thread and move it, as I expect it'll likely turn into a discussion about reasoning why such an event could occur.
Remember to keep it civil.
Advocacy of treasonous or illegal actions will be cause for punitive actions.
Oh, so you're going to make a pre-emptive strike? Do you happen to be a native of South Carolina? How well did that work out last time?
[ar15] [Fort Sumter]
Moreover, I, as a native Michigander, have no reason to take up arms against another state--well, except maybe Illinois. If it would help, I might take up arms to protect the Great Lakes from being laid open to destructive invasive species. However, I don't think that there is any really effective way to do that and war would only increase our vulnerability.
You'd likely have an ally in Florida. I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a transplanted Michigander when I lived down there.
-
Turnout for elections is pathetic. Some stats I've seen estimate that 61% of eligible persons cast votes in the 2008 presidential election, and that was seen as a major coup in terms of "getting out the vote." More often, at least here in Ohio, the percentage is less than 50%. the rest can't be bothered to get out of the easy chair and go cast a vote.
That same apathy would surely keep most people from getting involved in any sort of revolution or civil uprising. Too hard, too much work. Dancing with the Stars and American Idol are on. :facepalm:
-
I see this topic (or one like it) crop up every couple months. And I always make the same point...
If/when there's another civil war, it will look like the "standoff" scene in Reservoir Dogs writ large.
You'd have the "Government" faction, fighting the "AZRedhawk" faction, who is temporarily alligned with the "280plus" faction, who is gonna help the "Monkeyleg" faction wipe out the "Fistful" faction, then crawfish on 'em when fighting the "Strings" faction...
"Civil", it will NOT be...
-
If you invade Western Washington, be sure to bring your Goretex and some dry socks. You will need them six months out of the year.
-
Aw, not this stuff again. [Rabbi's avatar]
Flawed OP. The Revolutionary and Civil Wars were not state v. state conflicts. In both cases, states united into a larger polity, to fight a common enemy. Loyalty to one's state was probably a major factor in both conflicts, however.
-
If it happens it won't be on a state vs. state basis.
-
I've lived in New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Florida, Arizona, Kansas, back to Arizona, and Washington. I had intrastate moves within all of those but NY and PA. Did a very brief stint in California last year as well. Also spent a year in New Zealand. My lifetime list of residences is now up to 31. And I'm only 33.
Sadly I'm not as unusual as I'd have hoped. While perhaps more transient than most, there's relatively few people that I've run to that I went to HS (either in PA or OR) with that haven't scattered themselves across the country.
Becuase of that, I don't think that very many people identify themselves as citizens of any particular state. Robert E Lee considered his loyalty first to Virginia, and second to the USA. Had VA stayed with the Union, he'd have fought on that side. That attitude is largely dead in 21st century America (except perhaps in Texas). Pockets can probably be found still where that attitude prevails in each state, but the percentages are vanishingly small.
-
Becuase of that, I don't think that very many people identify themselves as citizens of any particular state. Robert E Lee considered his loyalty first to Virginia, and second to the USA. Had VA stayed with the Union, he'd have fought on that side. That attitude is largely dead in 21st century America (except perhaps in Texas). Pockets can probably be found still where that attitude prevails in each state, but the percentages are vanishingly small.
Exactly.
-
I think there are two ways such an event could go down in the 21st century. Not to say this will or should, but if they were I think the below would be the most likely.
First would be a Northern Ireland type of thing. Groups of people, perhaps state funded but not necessarily, carrying out attacks against federal interests. I think we would be likely to see strategic uses of force and little if any indiscriminate terrorist type actions. Car bomb in times square highly unlikely, FBI/federal LE building possible likely, army/military/government building highly likely. I think it would be highly unlikely and take a hell of a FUBAR by the feds for us to see a state openly fighting US military forces with it's own guard/milita forces. A small clash between state and federal LE perhaps is I think the most we'd likely see. But the feds couldn't get the support to invade US soil, and I doubt a state could get the support to go into open rebellion.
The next, and probably more likely and likely to happen before the above, would be to see a state or group of states go rouge. Think Arizona on immigration but on a much higher level. Ordering it's own troops to the border with orders to actually secure it, including use of deadly force, or refusing to follow some new law or tax rate sort of thing. Possibly going so far as to refuse to accept a SCOTUS decision it feels is wrong. Perhaps outlawing something the feds say needs to be legal. I think this scenario is becoming more and more likely as DC get's more and more detached from reality. So IOW, not open warfare or rebellion, but telling the feds to sit on something and rotate. Perhaps this would happen in an attempt to force the feds to go back to having to modify the COTUS to use powers it doesn't already give them, rather then ignoring it and making whatever new laws they feel like making.
Secession would be touchy. Most Americans like being Americans and identify first and foremost as Americans. I think it would take much worse from DC then we are currently seeing to make such a thing happen. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. There simply isn't the catalyst there as there was in the 1800's. There is immigration, but I think the above (state going rouge) is much more likely than outright secession.
-
I think it would be highly unlikely and take a hell of a FUBAR by the feds for us to see a state openly fighting US military forces with it's own guard/milita forces.
Which guard or militia forces would that state use? Certainly not Army Reserve or Army National Guard. I only know of a few state that have State Guards that are even armed.
Think Arizona on immigration but on a much higher level. Ordering it's own troops to the border with orders to actually secure it, including use of deadly force, or refusing to follow some new law or tax rate sort of thing.
Again, which troops? Active Army, Army Reserve, and yes, even Army National Guard wouldn't do it. I don't know a single Guard soldier who doesn't think of himself as a member of the US Army. The idea that we're "state soldiers" has been dead for years. The National Guard of 2010 is US Army soldiers who are allowed to have civilian jobs when not drilling/deployed. We're not state militia. We're US Army. If a state had the mind to use troops to secure it's internal borders with other states, it's going to have to looks elsewhere to get them.
Which brings me to the question of my poll. Are there enough people who feel that tied to their state, that they would pick up arms and use them against other Americans in what they consider defense of their state? I don't think so. It's certainly not an attitude I have ever seen in any military unit. All three components of the Army are American Soldiers through and through. I would imagine it's the same with the other branches of the military. So a state isn't going to get more than a handful of fighters from Army units, Active or otherwise. That leaves civilians. State Guards, volunteer militias, Local and State LEOs, and your average Joe. Would a significant number of these people be willing to stand at the border of Interstate 10 in Arizona, and actually shoot and kill Americans from Nevada(or Feds from Washington DC for that matter)? I really don't think so.
-
A fun question would be if you would help other states fight your 'home state.'
:Ned Hamford is from NY:
:P
-
Plus, if things were that bad, would reserve or national guard units even report?
IMO, there is a whole lot of momentum for a "normal" life and govt in the US. I think things would have to break down pretty badly for a while before people would start taking up arms. I don't see it happening is any short term view of things. I think it might even take a couple generations of people living in bad times to create that sort of chaos.
-
Nope, no interstate civil wars. If there is ever enough breakdown of law and order or enough anger or an event which sparks a large conflict, its going to be rural against urban, capitalist against marxist, haves against have-nots, neighborhoods against neighborhood, race against race. It isn't going to happen so long as the war is kept 'cold' and is continued to be fought by all the factions through government and the court system.
-
Secession would be touchy. Most Americans like being Americans and identify first and foremost as Americans. I think it would take much worse from DC then we are currently seeing to make such a thing happen. Not impossible, but highly unlikely. There simply isn't the catalyst there as there was in the 1800's. There is immigration, but I think the above (state going rouge) is much more likely than outright secession.
Who says Americans would stop identifying with being American? The issue is that a lot of Americans see a lot of other Americans as No Longer American. "Secession" can take many forms. One is disaffection, followed by withdrawal, followed by civil disobedience, and so on. Envisioning pockets of "anarchy" is not very farfetched the way things are proceeding. Those who believe things aren't bad enough for people to become alienated need to go deeper into our economic predicament: we are that close to a breakdown that will change the daily lives, dramatically, for everyone on this forum. What people do about that is the question.
-
I agree that some sort of civil war is possible, even likely at some point in the future. But I think the lines will be drawn with ideology, not geography. I stand more with the people on this forum than I ever would with the people who happen to live near me. I think one of the things that changed between the 1860s and now is that ideology back then was largely symmetrical with geography. Political issues such as slavery, taxes on manufacturing vs taxes on farming, and succession were issues important to people who lived in certain areas. These days, with so much inter-connectivity and mobility, issues bridge distances. A civil war of the 2000's will not be Michigan vs. Ohio or Arizona vs. California. It will probably be citizens of all 4 of those states who believe in A vs citizens of all 4 of those states who believe B.
-
What Brimic said.
On a less deadly "battlefield", maybe we could have team competitions like "Daily Kos" vs. "Free Republic" games. Anybody remember a slapstick competition show from decades back called "Almost Anything Goes"?
-
I thought I posted something insightful here. Appears not.
I don't see an inter-state civil war happening, unless 49 states declare war on Texas.
And open warfare of the blue state/red state variety would be rather short. There are a lot of nukes in flyover country - and once the anti-FedGov side got hold of one of those, a truce would probably be arranged in short order.
An insurgency, sure. Those don't really require standing up to tanks and close air support on a regular basis.
-
And open warfare of the blue state/red state variety would be rather short. There are a lot of nukes in flyover country - and once the anti-FedGov side got hold of one of those, a truce would probably be arranged in short order.
The problem with the Red state/Blue state paradigm is that even in Blue states the 'Blue People' are mainly concentrated into small geographical areas. Nuking such an area will not be as effective as Red People who are embedded in those small areas or in surrounding red areas cutting off food, raw materials, transportation, etc.
-
I wonder about civil war as a result of a constitutional convention ... suppose it becomes obvious that 3/4 of the states are being ruled by 1/4 of the states, and the 3/4 of the states call for a convention and propose/ratify amendments to improve their situation ... I am not sure that the 1/4 of the states would respect the properly introduced/ratified amendments, and those 1/4 of the States might be in a position to use the US military to try to force some other order upon us all.
-
Someone just wake me up when the shootin' starts.... ;)
-
Divisions by state....most likely not....
Divisions by cultural and political beliefs....most likely so.....
Our next civil war will look more like Northern Ireland or Bosnia....no standing armies or cavalry charges....more car bombs and assasinations....not pretty at all....
-
Divisions by state....most likely not....
Divisions by cultural and political beliefs....most likely so.....
They need us, we don't need them.
-
I am not sure that the 1/4 of the states would respect the properly introduced/ratified amendments, and those 1/4 of the States might be in a position to use the US military to try to force some other order upon us all.
But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?
-
But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?
??? Most of our politicians are doing that right now and the military is still following orders . .. ... . . . . .... ;/
-
But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?
The 25% of those surveyed that answered 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the following question:
46. The U.S. government declares a ban on the possession, sale, transportation, and transfer of all non-approved firearms. A 30-day amnesty period is established for these firearms to be turned over to the local authorities. At the end of this period, a number of irregular citizen groups and defiant individuals refuse to turn over their firearms to authority.
Consider the following statement:
"I would fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government."
If you can't trust that even most of only a few hundred politicians would adhere to their oaths to the constitution, what are the odds that the entire military of some 3 million people will adhere to it, let alone actually be well versed in the specific powers and rights delegated and enumerated in that document and thus be equipped to readily identify and refuse an unconstitutional order?
-
Key word: blatant. There is a BIG difference between the selective enforcement of a miasma of confusingly written law, and a politician just stating "I refuse to recognize The ____th Amendment".
kgbsquirrel, care to cite not only the text of the survey, but the actual data regarding answers?
-
Key word: blatant. There is a BIG difference between the selective enforcement of a miasma of confusingly written law, and a politician just stating "I refuse to recognize The ____th Amendment".
kgbsquirrel, care to cite not only the text of the survey, but the actual data regarding answers?
As part of LCDR Cunningham's academic project while earning his Masters he dispensed said survey to three hundred marines at 29 Palms. It was conducted on May 10th, 1994. Approximately one quarter of the survey group responded "agree" or "strongly agree" to that particular question. Also to the preceding question which I did not include in my excerpt, asking if they would swear allegiance to the United Nations, approximately one quarter of the group also answered in the affirmative.
ETA: Should I include a reference to the actual, and not hypothetical survey, gun seizures by National Guard troops and local police in New Orleans following Katrina?
-
As part of LCDR Cunningham's academic project while earning his Masters he dispensed said survey to three hundred marines at 29 Palms. It was conducted on May 10th, 1994. Approximately one quarter of the survey group responded "agree" or "strongly agree" to that particular question. Also to the preceding question which I did not include in my excerpt, asking if they would swear allegiance to the United Nations, approximately one quarter of the group also answered in the affirmative.
ETA: Should I include a reference to the actual, and not hypothetical survey, gun seizures by National Guard troops and local police in New Orleans following Katrina?
IIRC, it was LA and CA LEO's that were doing the confiscations, not Nat'l Guard. But the point still stands.
In response, I'd want to ask a random number of gun owners, "If Nat'l Guard soldiers and LEO's were coming to take your guns, would you fire upon them?"
Post no answers, please. This you have to decide in your own mind....
-
But who in the military would follow the orders of politicians who are blatantly ignoring the Constitution?
From my southeastern perspective, if the US military attacked the red states for the sake of the blue states who were ignoring the US Constitution, it wouldn't be the first time.