Calfornia is on one side of an immense cultural division, the rest of the US on the other. There is a genuine worldview difference here that could, in my view, lead eventually to a split.
They also have the money & arms industry to support this.
But it can’t happen, unless the current US military policy of frequent rotation/reassignment of troops from one post to another is cancelled. If this occurs, the standing forces in California might develop strong local bonds.
Nope.
Thought I wouldn’t miss California. 
You misused it again and I’m not expecting a response. 
I do understand your point, however.
I really don’t think a civil war along the lines of the 1860-65 war would be possible today. Then again, any war like that would be impossible today, wars are fought very differently. I think something along the lines of what’s happening currently in N. Ireland, or with the Basque Separatist Movement in Western Europe, is within the realm of possibility, given the development of some very strong, irreconcilable ideological differences.
That said, I do believe it is correct to say, as one poster pointed out, that if a state were to secede, the remaining states would have absolutely no stomach for a long and bloody war to force them to rejoin the union. So if a state were to make a serious attempt, I think it would be successful, with very little bloodshed.
Which leads to an interesting thought. The idea of an actual state seceding is well nigh unthinkable, but how about an indian tribe taking it’s reservation lands and declaring themselves sovereign? This could actually happen, and might even work…
Hey, buddy, maybe we could teach you something… like spelling? (It’s “though”.)
Seriously, think of California as part of the big system of checks and balances. Lots of establishment thinking in the East, lots of maverick types in the Midwest, lots of counter-culture folks in the West. If it weren’t for all of them, the result would be less balanced. In a sense, that’s one of the biggest arguments against a civil war.
Not only, that, but you might have me living next door, if there was no California.
("Has the llama finished using the hot tub, yet, dear? The ecologists want to have a sit-in there.)
Be very afraid.
I was under the impression that Lee did that so he wouldn’t have to fight his own family…
Cite. It seems to be more of a romantically-written piece than most of the others I read, so I’d be interested to know if this is a UL.
But Puerto Rico does not want to become a state - they get much better benifits being a US terratory
Well, they voted not to become a state, but the results were really close. According to this site, the results of the 1998 plebiscite were as follows (with a 71.3% voter turnout):
Become a “Territorial” Commonwealth: 0.1%
Free Association: 0.3%
Statehood: 46.5%
Independence: 2.5%
None of the Above: 50.3%
That’s a gap of less than 4% between the supporters of statehood and those who want things to stay as they are. In 1993, this gap was even smaller, so it’s quite possible that Puerto Rico may lean toward statehood sometime within the next 20-40 years.
I don’t see how you can call the state of Cali a culturally independent region. They have Republicans and Democrats, neo-Nazis and vegetarians and cokeheads and rednecks and disgruntled postal workers and Laotian immigrants and dumb, leggy model/actresses and just about anything else you can think of. The voters consist of what–media moguls, auto workers, recently naturalized Guatemalen immigrants, and rock bands? Where is the great cultural homogeny that would lead to secession?
What exactly makes Californians uniquely “different” enough to consider themselves non-Americans? High electric bills? SUV ownership? Mexican parents? Please explain.
I think a new civil war is a distinct possibility, but not along north/south lines. The most likely scenario, IMHO, is along the lines of what Crafter_Man suggested. A conservative government attempting to heavily codify “family values” and then actually enforcing them. The main problem I see with a new civil war is that it’s hard for a single administration to effectively anger and polarize a large enough segment of the population for an actual war to occur. The government would have to combine (heavily IMHO here) the worst aspects of conservatism (enforcement of “family values”, a Christian moral imperative) with the worst aspects of liberalism (gun control, big government, maybe high taxes). It’s hard to see how such a coalition could be formed, but if it was, I could see the country breaking into two sides, one being the “in power” government seated in DC, with its constituents in the south, mid east, and mid west. The map Sofa King linked to somewhat shows what I mean in the minimap. The north of the country, the west of the country, and the Northeast would fall into the opposition, with the seat of government probably in the west, perhaps California or Washington. I would expect that some of the republican states on that map, notably Idaho, Montana, and Nevada, might side with the opposition, simply due to objection to “meddling” by the government. Then again, I may be talking out of my ass:)
I could see the war starting when the governor of a state where the population was mostly against the administration’s policies refused to allow enforcement of them, raising constitutional objections. I see the gun control angle coming into effect if/when martial law is declared by the federal government to force state(s) to allow them to apply the laws of the new administration. After martial law was declared, the federal government would stop pretending to care about the constitution, saying that the country is in crisis and needs to be defended. Enter death spiral, Feds send troops to enforce laws, state uses troops stationed inside to to prevent access to federal troops, shots are fired, other like-minded states come to the aid of the state under attack, and then we have a civil war. One side claiming to be “fighting for freedom and the constitution”, the other side for “security and integrity of the country.”
I’d imagine that some states or regions might collapse into anarchy, due to wide variations in public opinion and fights over which side the state should be on.
Ok, there ends my wild-ass guessing about a possible, if unlikely, future. Count the number of times I used “I imagine”, “may”, “possibly”, “I expect”, and “might” to see just how far out of my arse I pulled this stuff:)
A few years ago I had an idea for a book along these lines, and considering I hope one day to develop it more and eventually write it, I probably should not post details about it. I think it’s a pretty good take on the subject, but more consonant with FDISK’s post than a North/South thing. In mine, a large, highly vocal, activist minority, through clever political maneuvering and a skillfully executed military takeover, manages to assume control of the US mainland. The dissenters are mostly displaced or silenced, and the original U.S. Government in exile along with the remaining loyal military forces, in concert with both foreign allies and the domestic resistance, have to wage a long and destructive war against the New U.S. In the milieu I’m developing this is only the first part of a longer science-fiction saga, and it remains to be seen if I can ever get anything together enough to actually write it, but I hope it’s a least moderately plausible.
Very interesting question, and I wish I had the three part series in the British Geographic magazine published 20 years ago to be able to quote exactly what they said.
According to their lengthy study, the United States is divided into three major regions: East, South, and West.
Even more interestingly, there are many subregions within each.
Unfortunately, I can’t remember exactly which features they used to distinguish regions, but they included things like: language, culture, food, religion, ethnic concentrations. (I think there were others, as well.)
Many of the subareas are huge. I think one practically covers Utah. Other are very small, and there’s a noticable change in culture a number of times within just 100 miles.
The places with the densest numbers of subregions were New York City area and the San Francisco Bay area. If you know those areas well, this wouldn’t come as a surprise.
When I travel 120 miles to Sacramento, I’m always startled by the number of cultural differences. They use a number of different words commonly, they dress differently, and they have, to my ear, a slight accent.
(But I don’t know Californians who actually consider themselves “non-American” as mentioned in your post. That would be rather strange.)
It’s just a matter of time before the US loses the Southwest. Mexico will eventually decide it wants it’s stolen territories back and since in a couple of decades the population in the Southwest will be largely hispanic, well why not?
Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas will return to the Mexican people and the only way the US will be able to get them back is through military invasion, on its own soil!
Maybe that’s not the kind of civil war you were describing.
tell you what guys, if you upstart empire-leaving colonials ever do kick off a war again - then us Brits will happily step in and take control back if you want.
seriously though - although the concept of a “civil war” my well be a bit over the top, the idea that regions within america (or anywhere else in the world) may start to clamour for secession from the Union is by no means out of the question.
One of the main reasons why “states” (as in nations) form is for protection - a number of regions group together in order to ensure security against foreign invasion.
in both mainland USA and Western Europe this kind of security is no longer so much of an issue due to the changing nature of warfare.
So any region which does possess strong regional loyalties - such as the Basques in Spain, the Scots in Britain and maybe the Texans in America (i’m guessing here - don’t shoot me if i’m wrong) are begining (or may begin) to question their reason for being part of a larger nation.
You only have to look at the intense debate within Great Britain right now about “devolution” - greater independence for Scotland and Wales - which has actually led to these areas establishing their own parliaments and taxes. Similar calls are now beginning to emerge for an “English” Parliament.
The possibilty that in 30 years “Great Britain” will no longer exist is by no means out of the question.
So without being funny guys if it can happen to a nation which has, quite frankly, been around a helluvah lot longer than you - then it may well happen in america as well.
Of course there is also the possibility that Great Britain could be shattered by another King vs Parliament war - but thats a story for another thread methinks.
Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl! (or even a playoff game)
Detroit Tigers win the World Series.
Central Michigan Chippewas win the NCAA football Mythical National Championship.