Does soldiers in the US miltary get lectures on the content of the constitution?
CrazyChop, your basic premise is flawed. You seem to be thinking that the United States looks like this or maybe even this. In reality, it looks more like this or, actually, this. Where are the two countries that you see splitting apart? Where are the two militarized factions?
The parties are not divided on the basis of basic identity or concept of government. They both agree on the basics – the United States is a liberal, democratic country in which every citizen holds basic rights, regardless of the identity characteristics of that person. The victory of one party in an election doesn’t mean a complete loss of personal rights or security for those who supported the losing party. What would be the motivation for an armed uprising?
Yeah. Utah and Oklahoma are solidly red. Georgia was close, and Arizona may well have gone blue if McCain weren’t from there.
N.B. that many of the situations that in other nations get the military in a position to gain political aspirations are expressly forbidden by the Posse Comitatus Act and by the regulations on political activity for military members:
http://www.malmstrom.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123114973
I can’t find the exact provision that prohibits an active military officer from running for or assuming a political post, but it simply wouldn’t be permitted whereas in say Burma, it would be par for the course.
OP, if you haven’t already, consider some reading on the long, long debate about whether states/regions have the right to dis-associate from the Union. There is a fundamental problem with this issue for the U.S. in particular: the entire Declaration of Independence and Revolutionary War were founded on the conviction that national affinities were elective and that when regional differences diverged, separation and establishment of a new sovereign government were not just feasible, but morally required. It’s not coincidental that the Revolution took place not long after Locke published on his “compact theory” of government, where the consent of the governed was a pre-condition for legitimacy of whatever given polity.
Lincoln and his thugs decided otherwise in the 1860s, and their constitutional theory proved superior at Appomattox Courthouse. Wrong though they may well have been, these events left a lasting mark on the American people, and the bell of secession not being a viable option is unlikely to be unrung anytime soon.
I’ll take issue of your description of President Lincoln and his aides as “thugs,” if I may. Notwithstanding the verdict of the battlefield, there’s another reason the U.S. couldn’t split up again: it’d be illegal. See Texas v. White (1869), 74 U.S. 700, in which the Supreme Court held that “The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states.”
The Constitution could be changed, however, if enough Americans wanted the country to split up.
In addition, if the political will no longer exists for something, it can be abandoned without changing the laws. Back in 1991, the Soviet Union basically ceased to exist, because no one really wanted it to continue. I don’t think they formally repealed the constition, but there was no state agency left to enforce it.
Nothing like that event is going to happen in the near future in the US, as a great majority of all sections of the population support the existence of the US. But it’s a combination of formal laws and informal political will that ensure the continued existence of the US.
It’s probably worth adding that the polarization between the parties and the real political differences are probably greater in the UK than they are in the States but the possibility of a coup or civil war is as remote as in the States - and for many of the same reasons.
There is a strong identification with the country rather than with a party and it is just not worth it - wait a while and there will be fresh elections which your party have a good chance of winning, combined with a certainty that those in power will reliquish it if they lose.
And, again as in the States, the British military have an absolute taboo on interfering in politics - whateve the personal feelings of the senior officers.
Think of the reasons that coups happen in Southeast Asian countries. Virtually none of the characteristics that would lead to coups are the case in the US: The military doesn’t have any interest in civilian affairs and policymaking and generally keeps to itself, ethnic divisions are generally quite weak, regionalism is close to nonexistant, quality of living, education, and income are all high… the absence of these sorts of things makes civil war virtually unthinkable.
Even the issues HeyHomie listed above would almost certainly be resolved through normal political avenues. The American experience with Prohibition is a testamennt to the resiliency of American political culture.
Actually it turned out very well.
I think it’s safe to say that we would be better off if we could have established a no-slavery consensus without going through the division of the country. Secession had a deep effect whose ripples are still being felt.
In addition to the actual popular vote being much closer than the Electoral vote, the solidly one party states are not contiguous.
You certainly take the long term view.
The split failed, so the country was, and remains, united. Unless you know something I don’t know.
700,000 dead means nothing to you?
Hi all,
Thanks for the enlightening information. I think I am able to understand and buy it, just that I feel it’s really strange. Some of the things said in the US election would put you in jail here, without a trial, indefinitely, just because the government is afraid it would cause a violent conflict.
May I request a moderator to close this thread and mark it as answered? Don’t wish the thread to go into the ‘hotter’ regions 
Good job guys. I think this one’s been taken as far as we can. The OP has requested it be closed. Feel free to debate any topics in Great Debates.
samclem Moderator, GQ