Strictly WAG, but a possible scenario could arise from the combination of a number of problems arising.
Falling energy supplies, requiring the transition to alternative fuel sources.
Heightened competition overseas if large nations like India and China get their economic acts together for real (as opposed to the Japan “bubble” of the '90s).
A federal budget crisis in which the demands placed on taxpayers to finance Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid leaves little wiggle room for the government to continue maintaining the infrastructure and military commitments.
Combined with a government unable to react to these problems quickly enough, due to the complex nature of bureaucracy, the complex regulations, and the usual political grandstanding.
An acceleration of the water crisis out West, where the growing West Coast population continues to drain the aquifier from other states to the point where it can’t be replenished fast enough.
If all this results in the economy going into the toilet, we may see a rise in succession movements on a regional basis. Over the last 10 years, we’ve had minor crisises with the Republic of Texas (a standoff from a nutso group that was more anti-tax and anti-government than anything else) and a move by northern California to secede from southern California. I think there were a few more minor movements there as well.
Now, if the feds become seriously paralyzed, that may lead to a drive to call a constitutional convention to rewrite or amend the document. If it comes to that, then anything could happen, because there are no rules for what happens next. Interesting times, indeed.
Seriously, I don’t think it’ll happen, but that’s how bad it would have to be to get near to it.
It was a nickname I gave myself in college. I thought I cam up with it myself, but on further review I think it likely that it came from Calvin and Hobbes, who often went to the plant Zog.
The number part came from my days on AOL shudder and using AIM. I couldn’t use Zog, and hate Zog1, Zog2, etc. so I just went to the underscore (Yay UNIX) and 10. Now it’s my username all over the place - like on WoW.
Yeah, I agree with most of you guys. I see two major obstacles to another US Civil War:
Startup Issues
No one state or group of states is poised to secede (at least at this time)
It’s more likely that a small group of people would be moved to rebellion, but they are likely to get stomped by the federal authorities (FBI, US Army) before any action is taken
No polarizing issue to get the people moving like there was in the 1860s
Stength of the US Army, weakness of local forces
The other big problem I see is the overwhelming superiority of the US Armed forces vs. anything the states could really mount. Unless large portions of the US Armed forces defected to a rebellion, then as soon as something really took off - even if involved National Guard units - the Army and Air Force would kick their ass. And blockcading of coasts and stoppage of rail and truck transport would likely be even more effective then before.
I am not a Montanan, howwvere I sepent a good deal of time working and hunting and fishing with the folks in Montana and Wyoming. Take my comments as you please:
There is a sense of self reliance still present in many areas of the Midwest, and Western US that in my opinion is a hold over from the pioneer expansion from the 1800’s and the massive waves of immigrants from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. These folks were all willing to do what it took to survive and for most that meant hunting and fishing to feed their family. Considering for many people alive today, those settlers were only a few generations back, it should be no surprise that for many those attitudes and feelings of self reliance are still strong today.
I’m not sure why the shudder comment as far as self defense goes, but in places such as Wyoming, Montana, Idaho as well as most of the other Great Plains states, Johnny Law isn’t always a phone call and a 5 minute drive away. People there have for generations been taking care of themselves and will most likely be doing the same for quite some time… That is until enough folks from California move in and ruin what is left.
Combine a legitimate need for self defense from criminals AND animals, historic self reliance, and some of the best hunting in the world, and you should be able to see why guns are so dear to the people in the states mentioned.
JXJohns got the gun mentality in Montana pretty much pegged, from what I can recall from my upbringing. For example, the town I lived in after I graduated from High School had 3 cops, and none were on duty from 4am to 6am, so there was this 2 hour window wherein there was NO POLICE coverage. For a town of just over 1000 people. And even then, if they had been called out for something at an outlying ranch or farm, there may be an hour or more between the time you called 911 (connected to a comm center that handled 911 for a lot of the small towns in the area) and the cop showed up.
Most of the boy friends (and more than one girl) that I knew when I was small would get shotguns or rifles for their 12th birthday. Most would have been hunting with their fathers or other males figures from age 10 or so. Not necessarily shooting, but lugging packs and helping dress and carry birds or just learning the fieldcraft. I know for a fact that hunting kept my family in meat during the winter, when a fixed income would have to go towards winter coats and other items for 2 kids.
This mindset, right or wrong, combined with the rabid extremists on both sides have always led me to believe that this is an issue that could really come to blows. My scenario just makes it a slightly (hehe) larger fight than to pundits getting in an arguement on crossfire.
You’re missing the point. I was shuddering (as any sensible person should) at the idea, apparently so widely held yet so little openly discussed among pro-gun activists, that personal ownership of firearms is essential to defend, not only life and property, but “freedom” – implying that they need their guns to shoot at the police, or ATF or FBI agents, or the Army, if they should ever adjudge it necessary. It’s called the “insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment”. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=201061&highlight=amendment I trust very few Montanans think of their guns/gun-rights in that way?
I read that thread and I saw no conclusion amongst the members of the discussion to support your point. I saw many differing opinions so I would say that the issue is at best ambiguous and that many gunowners in general, not just those in Montana or South Carolina or Vermont feel that yes their personal freedoms are in someways guaranteed by a combination of their second amendment rights and their sporting and non-sporting arms.
Many non gunowners, or foreign born folks can’t understand how a bunch of rednecks from the hills could ever believe such a thing, or how they could think that they would have any chance at all against today’s military (which is comprised of a lot of rednecks from the hills BTW). My experiences with Montana folk tells me that they really don’t care what anyone thinks about them anyway.
And… you claim that any sensible person should feel the same way you do and shudder at the idea of the “insurrectionary theory of the Second Amendment” Does that mean that everyone in your linked thread that did not agree with you are not sensible? Are gunowners in general not at the same intellectual level as those in your camp who shudder at beliefs in self reliance and protection from corrupt government?
I said earlier that I doubted whether a civil type war could break out as there are few polarizing issues today to do so. I retract that statement and agree with Tristan and others that the gun issue could be just the issue especially if there are those that look down their intellectually superior noses and smirk at the gunwoners beliefs.
Reasonable minds might perhaps differ as to whether the “insurrectionary theory” was what the drafters of the Second Amendment actually had in mind. (And even within that theory it remains unclear whether the “militia” is meant to be a mass-based countervailing force against government in general, or an instrument of the state governments as against federal supremacy.)
But anyone who believes personal gun ownership (or, in Major Kong’s scenario in the linked thread to linked thread, bomb ownership) can protect them from corrupt government, or even that it has any slightest relevance to the problem, is not sensible. Just ask the Iraqis. Most of them (the men, anyway) own automatic rifles, and did when Hussein ruled. They still had to obey the state.
Sure they had the auto rifles, but they didn’t have the revolutionary spirit or self reliance that has been an active partcipant in the shaping of this country. In fact, they will be handed a “democracy” when that mess is over and my prediction is they will fall into the very civil war that we are speaking of in this thread. In my opinion, a democracy is built and shaped by those who have the most to gain/lose. It is not handed by an army who states upon their leave: “here you go and enjoy that freedom we promised, don’t call us, we’ll call you…”
That is the difference here. As I said earlier, many people in this country are not that far removed from their trailblazer ancestors. As such, the thoughts of consensus with a corrupt government is as foreign a concept to many as is the concept of private firearms ownership in other countries. I’m not saying it’s going to happen overnight, or that it will happen at all. But people here and especially those in the states we have mentioned earlier will only take so much until they react. Whether that be in the voting booth or somewhere else remains to be seen.
I would say that the continued attack on what are perceived as basic civil rights spelled out in the constitution, the continued expanded reach of the federal government into what are/were considered local issues (water rights, grazing rights, access to forests, etc. ) These are the things that get under the skin of the farmers and ranchers, which there are a lot of out there. The continued influx of Californians is a major issue as well. Hollywood types as they are called are perceived to be moving in and buying up huge tracts of land and then limiting access to that land that had been accessible for generations for grazing or hunting and fishing.
Some phone calls to old friends out there in regards to this thread really makes me think that there are plenty in the great plains who truly identify themselves with their state first and country second. Their loyalty it seems is to Montana, with the federal govt bringing up a distant second place. All of the seeds for secession are in place, but then again, they have been in place for quite some time.
Such as what? (I’m sure you don’t mean gun rights; the NRA has Washington pretty well sewn up, and has for at least 20 years now.)
How, exactly, is the federal government (under the current Administration) interfering with these matters? (I ask out of genuine curiosity; I don’t live out West and the national media rarely mentions anything about any controversy over water rights or grazing rights.)
!!! Are you serious? How many Americans today are farmers or ranchers, or even employed in agricultural work of any kind? Isn’t it less than 5 percent of the total workforce?
I see 5 and 3 as a combination that could drive apart the nation. The inequal economics between coastal and inland areas, combined with the increasing water shortage, population differences and an increasingly inequal tax share(growing because of the population and economics combination) are all factors similar to those that lead to war in other nations. Also, if it were a coastal break off this could get around the military issues. Much of the West Coast has serious military defenses and serious militarization, so whether these would prevent secession or provide a ready made military would really make the difference. Most likely these groups would stay ‘federal’, but depending on the population trends and degree of alienation, this could swing different ways.
I don’t think it will happen, and I think it would be the worst possible solution to many of these problems but I can see the scenario…
Sure. But in places like Montana, Wyoming, etc. they are rather more important than they are say, in California or Florida. They may be a minority, but they are an IMPORTANT minority.
See also, Ceasar Chavez for what can be accomplished by a vocal and commited Minority.
Yeah an we Californians feel that Geezus state “morality” (e.g. “Culture of Life”) is being hoisted on us.
But I agree with Sam Stone. The parties are becoming more polarized. They watch their news shows and we watch ours. Communication has broken down. I mean, other than this board, I cannot have a decent debate with a republican anymore. This is a shame.
I don’t think that most normal people in the country are one way or the other. I think that they pick a party (usually their parent’s party) in name only and vote for who appeals to them election day. I think that debate has broken down between ideologues more than anything else.
I’m guessing you are not a gun owner. With all of the legislation passed against gunowners since 1986 alone you would not think things were sewn up if you had a stake in the game.
I’ll have to get more info on this. The perception is that the feds come in a label a chunk of ground as a national park, reserve, ect. At that moment, all access is shut off to it. Not my issue, but I’ll see what I can find.
You need to look at a map of the US outside of Tampa. See all of that area that doesn’t have towns and cities and booming metropoli? Someone owns that land and they probably do something to make money off of it. Now look at a map of Montana. See the lack of almost ANY towns in proportion to the size of the state? Most of that land is farmed or ranched… That is a lot of land, and a lot of people to manage it. Before you post a cite refuting my claim, make sure it is on a state by state basis, not the country as a whole.
Remember, just because issues are not near and dear to you does not mean they are not important to someone else. In addition, the country, especially the Great Plains, is a very big place.
