This is just a thought exercise thread, suggested by the thread about some hare brains running around trying to stir up another Southern secession.
But hey, what if?
It strikes me that the balance of power in the US has made a significant southern shift in the last 135 or so years. So who would win if the same states seceeded today and the North tried to rein 'em in? How do you see it playing out?
Lest anyone take this too seriously, it is just for fun. The author of this post in no way endorses the idea of secession. Your mileage may vary. Not to be taken internally. If rash persists, see a physician. Etc.
Well, it depends on what you mean by “the South.” If you mean the original Confederacy against the world, Disney World would be a flaming pile of rubble within a week. The North just has too much technology. I mean, who do you favor in a computerized war, Silicon Valley, Redmond and Massachusetts, or Richmond, VA?
In terms of population, too, the North does have both New York and L.A., as well as most of the states. I don’t think it would come to that, though. The trend in the world is toward globablization, not regionalism. If Europe can keep away from its own collective throat (sort of), why would America split? The economic hurdles would prevent it from going beyond preliminary planning.
Yeah, I know it’s not gonna happen in the real world. That’s why this is just a mental exercise.
But speaking of trends, I find U.S. rhetoric in recent years about the importance of “self-determination” kind of ironic, in view of the way the U.S. handled its own “breakaway republics.”
Well, duh. Whoever had the largest, best-motivated force with the most advanced, well-supported and used equipment, if it’s a shooting war you’re talking about. That would be a fairly reasonable guess.
Which side would that be?
There is no way of knowing. You can’t simply divide the US in two and say, “Okay, y’all get the equipment from the army and air force bases below this line, and we’ll take the rest”. How many on each side would refuse to fight? How many would flee and try to emigrate? What happens to the centralised institutions – governmental, police or military – or the states that were never really involved in the first war? What about US nationals and military forces abroad? Who gets the nukes?
It’s an interesting OP, but I don’t think there’s any realistic way to call it. Too much has changed.
Sorry, spoke-. I hope that didn’t sound like I was jumping down your throat. I think there are too many uncertainties and situations peculiar to this day and age to provide any more than a WAG.
OK, y’all are really not getting into the spirit of this thing, so I’ll start:
First of all, nukes are irrelevant. Neither side would use them. Aside from the issue of radioactive clouds drifting back and forth, it would be considered unconscionable. Every southern family would have at least some friends or family in the North, and vice versa. Nukes are a no-no.
The long terms served by Southern senators in the 20th century meant that Southerners wielded a lot of power on the Armed Services Committee. Result: The bulk of military bases are in the South. What would happen to those?
Additionally, the South has as much, or nearly as much industry now as the North, so the North has lost that advantage.
Naval blockade would be a problem for the South again, as it was during the Civil War, provided naval units remained loyal to the Union.
A wild card is media coverage. Could Northern generals wage total war on the South if the results were showing up on the nightly news? Or would news coverage of atrocities decrease resolve of the North, as it decreased resolve of Americans during Viet Nam?
Today, there would be no issue of slavery to make the South a moral pariah in the international community. Result: other nations might flock to the side of the South (if for no other reason than to see an end to American hegemony in the world).
Under today’s conditions, I say the South ultimately wins its independence.
Come on, now. Somebody else jump in. I haven’t even begun to talk about all the changes in military technology, and how they might come into play.
If we are going to debate this issue, we need to lay out some ground rules first. I propose the following…
1)The armed forces are divided according to where their headquarters are. Thus, the Navy goes to the confederacy as their headquarters are in Norfolk, VA. The Air Force goes to the Union, as their headquarters are in NV. I don’t know where the army is headquartered, or the marine corps for that matter but they would be divided along the same lines.
2)This civil war exists independent of other nations. This is important because otherwise we are debating “What if WWIII were to start over american soil?”
3)There is a reason for the schism. It seems obvious to me that if there was no slavery, the civil war would never have been fought. I propose this… The oil wells in Texas run dry and the south splits from the north when the north won’t let them declare war on mexico to claim a huge oil well found near mexico city. (Far fetched I know) Mexico, being extremely disorganized at the time decides not to get involved. Meanwhile the North declares war on the South.
No, I can’t accept your premises. First, you are putting the South in the position of being a potential pariah, since you have them invading (or wanting to invade) Mexico. Second, the location of a military service’s headquarters doesn’t ensure that everyone in that branch is going to be loyal to one region or the other. Third, while I agree that other nations would not be involved militarily, the way in which other nations view the war is important. Nation X might decide to provide arms shipments to one side or the other, mightn’t they?
Let’s keep the premise-building to a minimum. Let’s just say the South secedes in a bitter dispute over the tax code.
We have to divide the military somehow. I realize that the location of the headquarters may not have much to do with whether they would be loyal to that side or not but I don’t see much other way to divide them fairly without it being completely arbitrary.
If we were to divide them evenly, right down the middle, then there is no room for debate. The initial forces would simply be in a stalemate until one side or the other tipped the balance in their favor. In this case it would be the North as they have a greater potential for production and would thusly win any war of attrition.
Also, I sumbit that it is unrealistic to ask for complete non-involvement by foreign nations in the conflict. However as a starting point let us say that no foreign power would openly come out in support of either side unitl the U.N. got involved. Let us further say that due to the internal politics of the U.N., they wouldn’t be able to make any real decision unitl one side commited an atrocity against the other.
I think that will allow plenty of political pressure without any direct military aid.
Anyone remember a few short years back when the people of California and Arizona wanted to legalize the medicinal use of marijuana? We had the Drug Czar Barry McCaffery, Janet Reno, and Bill Clinton spoke of dire consequences should the referendums be passed.
The people of California thumbed their noses at the Federal Government. At that point Janet Reno stated that they would enforce Federal Laws and go after any doctor that perscribed marijuana. So we had a pretty clear conflict between the federal and state governments. It appears that the state governments won that time.
Without the slavery issue, I just don’t see how any potential American civil war could be sectional- what issue could divide the country geographically? Also, by the South do you mean just the thirteen states of the original Confederacy? Overall, they’d be even more outnumbered by the rest of the Union then the last time.
There are several Southern secessionist groups, however, as above, without a major issue, slavery it would be hard to see a repeat of the Civil War. More likely would be single state secession. There are several very small state secessionist movements: Texas, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Washington all have or have had political parties persuing secession. I would judge that the most likely to try would be Puerto Rico (yes I know it’s not a state) and Hawaii. The most likely to secede sucessfully would be Puerto Rico, especially as it may get help from other Latin and Carribbean nations (especially Cuba). Finally, Hawaii and Puerto Rico have the most compelling arguments for secession. Realistically, the Southern movements have the least likelyhood of sucesful secession.
As for who would win in a second Southern Civil War, I’d have to call it for the North. There is a greater imbalance against the South now. Also, the military seems to have less regional loyalty than at the time of the Civil War. I have trouble seeing a modern general being more loyal to his Home state than the US, in the manner R. E. Lee, and many other Southern generals were. Finally, there is a racist stigma attactched to the Southern secessionist movements. Not all of them are, but the racist do seem to attract the most attention. Any secessionist movement would need foreign recognition at the least, and I couldn’t see many governments giving it to a racist Southern secessionist movement.
I still say the South wins. As with the first Civil War, the North would have to fight a war of conquest. I believe that in the television age, it would be much more difficult to fight such a war. Images of atrocities and battlefield carnage streaming into living rooms has a way of dampening enthusiasm for a war, as we saw with Viet Nam.
If the South could just hold out for one election cycle, you would likely see an anti-war candidate emerge in the North and win.
That’s a mighty big if. Modern warfare has become much faster since times of old. Troops are more mobile now than they ever have been before.
You seem to be homing in on the despair of war. I believe (warning personal opinion follows, cannot be proven by any source that I am aware of)that the war would actually be very popular in the beginning. The time scale has been sped up immensely with the advent of air mobility.
I. This would be a war for air superiority.
Once one side had air superiority over the other, that side would be amlost guaranteed victory. In this case, the Union would be able to gain it by virtue of being able to produce aircraft faster.
II. This war would be settled quickly
The reason that the past is littered with conflicts like the thirty years war and the hundred years war, is that it is hard to move large groups of people long distances quickly. with the advent of modern mobility such as APCs and helicopters, it becomes much easier to get the troops you need in the place you need them in very fast order.
III. People don’t like to fight for things they do not believe in
Unless there is a stong political or moral issue to be fought over, neither side would be willing to fight “to the death” as it were. In order for me to believe that the south would be willing to take the kind of punishment that could be dished out in a modern war, they would have to have some motive force behind them. If they have no such motive, they would surrender on the first day. The Union already has such motive built in.(the old we’re takin’ back what’s ours motive.)
Anyhow, that’s why I think the south could not win.
Just like our greater air superiority in Viet-Nam? I seriously doubt they’d have the gumption to start bombing cities with civilians in it. You’d have plenty of troops entrenched in the cities waiting for the other side to send in their own ground troops.
**
Wars can go on for many years especially when one side doesn’t play by the rules. If one side is overwhelmed in a military sense they will resort to gurrila or terrorist activities. One side would have to send manned patrols in occupied cities and they would be vulnerable.
**
I agree. I can’t picture anything right now that would lead a great number of people to take up arms against the government. Obviously there’s some sort of breaking point but I don’t know what it is. At what point do you decide that the only means of attaining political clout is through violence?
Marc
If they have no such motive, they would surrender on the first day. The Union already has such motive built in.(the old we’re takin’ back what’s ours motive.)
Anyhow, that’s why I think the south could not win. **
[/QUOTE]
Which States are our nuclear missiles housed in?
(Tom Lehrer’s song “Who’s Next?” ended with the disturbing words, “We’ll try to stay serene and calm / When Alabama gets the bomb”. shudder)
Well, now, last time I checked, Lockheed had plants in Mississippi, Tennessee, and Georgia. This is what I mean when I talk about the changes since the Civil War. The South is industrialized now.
Also, excluding Alaska, the South has the great bulk of the oil reserves. (Which obviously was not a factor in the Civil War.) And as far as Alaska goes, I’m sure southerners could think of some way to disrupt the pipeline. Because of the oil issue, I see Naval power as being important. Either the South cuts off tankers from Alaska, or the North controls the Gulf and the Mississippi River and cuts off the oil-producing states of Texas and Louisiana from the rest of the South.
I’d say the South’s soldiers would have stronger motivations. As was the case in the Civil War, they would view themselves as defending their homes and families from an invading force. There is no stronger motivation.
The South houses most of the nation’s poison gas reserves, if they ever got desperate enough to use them. Also, the CDC is in Atlanta, if germ warfare becomes an issue. (Can’t see either gas or germ warfare coming into play, though. Not in a brother against brother sort of fight.)
