Is another US Civil War Possible?

**wickedsolo** · 06-10-2014, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Interesting you'd use Texas as one of your examples. The secession movement here isn't nearly the threat it's made out to be outside of the state. But I digress ...

An armed civil war? No. There isn't anything close to the division amongst the states like we saw between the north and the south back in the 1800's. There isn't a military commander out there that would break orders in that manner.

I used Texas because many often think that most Texans view their state as if it were its own country, which I could understand that image.

**wickedsolo** · 06-10-2014, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Secession is not realistic and would be impossible in today's age. Secession requires force. The federal government is simply too powerful to ever allow it to happen.

Chalk one up for "Honest" Abe.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-10-2014, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I used Texas because many often think that most Texans view their state as if it were its own country, which I could understand that image.

I wouldn't confuse Texas pride for a secession movement. I am very proud of my adoptive home state but the last thing I want is to secede.

The secessionists are a very small but vocal fringe group. They believe in a internet rumor that Texas somehow has the power to secede. It does not.

**darb72** · 06-10-2014, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Notsureifserious

About which part? Never being a civil war, or Lincoln being a racist scumbag? Cause both are historical facts.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-10-2014, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by darb72

About which part? Never being a civil war, or Lincoln being a racist scumbag? Cause both are historical facts.

You answered my question. Thanks.

**AirFlacco** · 06-10-2014, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

We've been in Afghanistan for over 10 years and haven't won yet. I don't think it would be unwinnable. Difficult, yes. But that's if it were against the U.S. Military, which I just don't see happening.

I could see a few states succeeding, probably in my lifetime. How it would go though, I'm not really sure.

We've contained them and killed or captured most if not all of their original leaders that planned 911. We destroyed the Taliban within 6 months, something the Russians couldn't do in 10 years there.

Prob was, after that the gov't let them re-group like the North Vietnamese did after both Tet Offensives and they came back. We let
the back door open for the Taliban just like in Nam.

Even still, those 5 terrorists OBY just traded were caught a long time ago and will probably be re-caught.

After the military drove Binny out of Afghanistan they eased up. the Seals finally killed him. The operations just aren't as intense as they were in the beginning and won't be unless there's another 911.

We've won just due to the fact there hasn't been one. There's been some bombings like in Boston but that wasn't even a Taliban operation.

We're still over there now to keep Russia and China from taking over the mid east oil in Iraq and Saudi Arbia. The one who controls those countries controls the oil and that's us.

**NCRAVEN** · 06-10-2014, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by AirFlacco

We've contained them and killed or captured most if not all of their original leaders that planned 911. We destroyed the Taliban within 6 months, something the Russians couldn't do in 10 years there.

Prob was, after that the gov't let them re-group like the North Vietnamese did after both Tet Offensives and they came back. We let
the back door open for the Taliban just like in Nam.

Even still, those 5 terrorists OBY just traded were caught a long time ago and will probably be re-caught.

After the military drove Binny out of Afghanistan they eased up. the Seals finally killed him. The operations just aren't as intense as they were in the beginning and won't be unless there's another 911.

We've won just due to the fact there hasn't been one. There's been some bombings like in Boston but that wasn't even a Taliban operation.

We're still over there now to keep Russia and China from taking over the mid east oil in Iraq and Saudi Arbia. The one who controls those countries controls the oil and that's us.

Part of my point was IF it were against the US Military. I just don't see all, or even most members of the military joining a fight for blood for a state wanting to leave the union.

**jonboy79** · 06-10-2014, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

I used Texas because many often think that most Texans view their state as if it were its own country, which I could understand that image.

While Vermont might want to leave, Texas, IMO, could theoretically support itself financially, where few if any OTHER states COULD.

I think Alaska is another. Basically it takes Oil, lots of it, IMO.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-10-2014, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

While Vermont might want to leave, Texas, IMO, could theoretically support itself financially, where few if any OTHER states COULD.

I think Alaska is another. Basically it takes Oil, lots of it, IMO.

Oil is forth on the list of top economic factors for Texas, behind Information Technology, Cattle and Defense.

**jonboy79** · 06-10-2014, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Oil is forth on the list of top economic factors for Texas, behind Information Technology, Cattle and Defense.

That is surprising, but simply even MORE reason to list as to why Texas was brought up in this discussion.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-10-2014, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by jonboy79

That is surprising, but simply even MORE reason to list as to why Texas was brought up in this discussion.

Ok. How?

**jonboy79** · 06-10-2014, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Ok. How?

It is a state that has talked about it in the past, and it makes at least SOME logistical sense.

How much fun is it talking about Vermont Succeeding the union?
It's my home state and I love it, but Ben and Jerry's and Green Mountain Coffee aren't going to cut it... neither is skiing tourism, "leafers" or Maple Syrup... not even with Cabot Cheese thrown in. IT would have a "better" chance getting Quebec to succeed Canada and join them...

Texas is at least seen as a state that has the resources to succeed on it's own two feet if it WERE to succeed, so the fact that it has been discussed there at one time makes it the prime target.
Despite Vermont having talked about it "fairly regularly" since the 1800's and "supposedly" having legal loopholes no other states possess. I say supposedly because I can't find legal backing, but the "talk" when I was in HS was that the US hadn't wised up completely as to how they were going to add states after the 13 colonies joined, and Vermont being the 14th state(1st additional to join) that theoretically, the US JOINED the sovereign nation of Vermont, and not vice versa, again, supposedly.

Also, being a Republican state will SURELY make a state more likely to be talked about succeeding RIGHT NOW then any Democratic/Liberal state such as VT. With the State of the Federal Gov't it would SURELY be a conservative state to try, if one were to even attempt.