Posted on 02/21/2013 10:50:03 PM PST by furquhart
When I sat down to write a follow-up to my first series The Third World War: A Narrative History, I initially struggled for a topic. After writing a thousand-page epic story of armies of millions clashing across continents, almost any other subject seemed puny in comparison. I played with a concept called “The Tenth Crusade”, about an effort to carve out a Christian “homeland” in the Middle East but, after doing some research, that seemed to me to be a topic that could only genuinely be done justice after some years of research and some actual time spent in the area. So, I asked myself, what event looms as large in cultural memory - if not quite in scope - as the Second World War? With that as the question, the answer seemed quite obvious: the Civil War. Thus was born the first book in my new series, entitled A House Divided, which hit Amazon.com yesterday.
All of this lends itself to a simple question: is a Second Civil War actually plausible?
After five months writing about the subject, my qualified answer is: it’s at least as plausible as a Third World War and about ten thousand people and counting have paid to take that particular ride with me. The less-flip answer is that I believe that it is and, in fact, that it is a more-imminent threat than any continent-destroying mass conflict of the sort depicted in The Blast of War, A Land War in Asia, and A Thousand Points of Light. That is not to say that I believe that the Blue and the Gray are about to again meet on their old battlefields in Virginia or that we are upon the verge of seeing the nation torn asunder as it was during the first Civil War, with a group of states attempted to secede and to form a new nation. No. I believe, and A House Divided hypothesizes, that a Second Civil War would be likely to take a form radically different than the first, bearing more resemblance to the Commons versus Crown clash that was the English Civil War or to the repeats turnings-over of the state experienced during the civil wars of the final days of the Roman republic than the secessionist struggle of the first that, at one time, the Federal Government classified as the “war of the rebellion.”
In other words, instead of having a bloc of states attempt to break away from the United States, as is still the tendency in even most modern-day future civil war hypothetical fiction (think of the late, great Jericho’s Allied States of America for an example), the most plausible way to construct a Second Civil War is to create a scenario where multiple factions fight for control of the Federal Government. In other words, in seeking to answer the first question, we need not ask, “will an organized group ever attempt to again secede from the United States?”, to which the answer is almost certainly no. Instead, we need merely ask ourselves whether, especially in the face of extreme political polarization and amid the threat of national bankruptcy, whether we will reach a point where a constitutional impasse will be reached that it appears can only be settled by the use of force. Could such an impasse lead to a scenario where Americans are forced to fight one another? I fear it would.
Consider, for example, some of the wild and pseudo-Constitutional theories floated during the recent impasse between President Obama and the Congress over the debt ceiling. Many of the President’s more aggressive partisans clamored, throughout that fight, for the President to take aggressive and arguably extra-Constitutional actions in order to maintain the funding of the Federal Government. As the years go on and the financial demands placed upon the Federal Government multiply, does not the likelihood that some future crisis will spur some future President to take some spectacular action that a large part of the country - and the Congress - might consider to be a blatant violation of the Constitution? And might not, in such an emergency, a President - especially one whose political fortunes depended upon the goodwill of an impoverished and dependent mass of the people created by years of government spending, opt to simply defy the Congress (and perhaps the courts as well) and, counting upon the support of a large percentage of the people, simply dare them to stop them?
One need not look far away for examples of this in our own world. Many been told the sob story of the supposedly-benevolent socialist President of Chile, Salvador Allende, who was displaced by a military coup on September 11, 1973. What most tellings of that story miss is that while Allende was indeed democratically-elected in accord with the Constitution of Chile as it existed at that time, Allende had responded to the realities of an economic crisis and the fact that he was a head of state elected with a plurality of the vote without control of the Chilean Congress by attempting to bypass the constitution and existing law and instead to rule by decree. In fact, both the Chilean Supreme Court and its Chamber of Deputies had, prior to the coup, declared that the government was operating contrary to existing law and the Constitution but had found that, without any direct enforcement mechanism, there were no legal means available to bring a halt to those illegal acts. Hence the coup.
Perhaps, though, we ought to look further back for our model. We would do well to remember that the politics of the Roman republic were largely corrupted by two things: an increasing prosperity that removed the average Roman aristocrat from the simple and hardscrabble ways of the past and the willingness of certain ambitious Roman politicians to use their ability to pander to the ever-increasing mob by means of recourse to the public treasury. Now, some stalwart Roman statesmen attempted to force the latter genie back into the bottle by slaying the politicians who had set it loose, but it proved far too late to do so. As a result, with the ordinary political process disfigured by endemic corruption and mob violence, the Roman scene became a whirlwind of endless coups, plots, and civil wars. At one point a conservative General, Sulla, attempted to settle things by overturning the state and having himself installed as the “Dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution.” Sulla, having seemingly restored the old order by his actions during his service as Dictator, then emulated the best tradition of Cincinnatus by voluntarily laying down his office. However, by his extraordinary act Sulla had, even though he may have acted with the best of intentions, shattered the ideal of the Roman Constitution and opened up the possibility that the government might be overturned by force many times more. As a result, by the time of Augustus, the Roman people wanted stability more than liberty and therefore they were more than happy to accept the lifetime dictatorship clothed in republican garments that was offered to them.
In other words, even if you oppose a particular President or believe that certain extra-Constitutional actions pose a threat to the survival of the Constitution, it remains to be seen whether the Constitution, overturned once, could be actually restored or whether it would simply be subsequently turned over many times by whatever group might muster the strength to do so.
That is what I find so fascinating and frightening about the prospect of a Second Civil War. Because the trends pulling Americans apart are not being healed but, instead, made much worse by present events, there exists every possibility that we will eventually reach a point of no return for both sides. At some point, events will have been allowed to escalate to such a degree that both sides will face a choice between either offering their surrender or accepting battle with no guarantee that even a victorious outcome will save their vision of America and of the Constitution. I hope that the American people will come to their senses and accept the need to restore fiscal sanity and the basic principles of limited government before we ever reach the banks of that particular Rubicon.
It has already begun with the attempts of the left to disarm us. But it won't be army vs. army this time; it will be federal alphabet agencies vs. individuals and small groups. Until we awaken to the fact that cutting off the head will kill the snake and start terminating THOSE WHO GIVE THE ORDERS we are all at risk.
As long as 47% are net beneficiaries of government largesse, they will see no need for sanity and actively oppose limited government.
Well its coming but its not going to be Civil War like 1861. This is not about secession its about the restoration of the Constitutional Republic. More than likely it will be carried out by the local sheriff’s and state govts. The states have the authority and the ability to bring the Federal govt under control and they will at some point. Or at least enough of them will.
If we experience the economic collapse in the next year or so you will see it happen then as the Fed govt will make their move to jackboot the public, declare martial law etc.
Governors won’t allow the Feds to cross their borders and manhandle the civilian population, confiscate guns ect. No Governor wants to see the populatin of his/her state out inthe street annihilating federal agents and cops which is what will happen if they don’t handle it.
“Governors won’t allow the Feds to cross their borders and manhandle the civilian population, confiscate guns ect. “
Sure they will. I mean, they sign these unconstitutional laws all the time. Do you really think the Governor of New York State will defend the people of New York from the feds? No way in Hell. He is committing acts of tyranny against them right now. He sure as Hell won’t protect them from the tyranny of the feds as he agrees with the feds.
I believe the opening shots are already being fired...Albiet it is not as loud as one would expect...
The feigns, Olay’s and the playground sentiment “You missed me, you missed me, neener neener neeeeeenerrrr!!!” Are what we are seeing now, and it is only irritating the whole situation...
The left and its Fabian socialist genre, are continuing to press the attack, hedging their bet that we will not fight back effectively enough till it IS actually too late...
When that occurs, and the fight really begins, everyone loses...
Me??? I am prepared either way it goes...
There will not be a definitive Lexington/Concord, Fort Sumter, Gulf of Tonkin type incident to enrage a reaction to arms some may expect...
Those opening shots have already been fired, in places like Ruby Ridge, Waco and the potential intrusiveness of government and law enforcement drones flying over our heads...
I have a lot more to add, but I figure this is enough to get my idea across for now...
The interesting part in all of this is if the administration REALLY wants to avoid a reaction everyone will regret, they would stop this attack on our country, wouldn’t they???
Which kinda begs the question, why have they not??? they already know where this is going...
Just my opinion...
I think I qualified my statement by saying that enough states will stand up. Nobody thinks NY, NJ,CA, MA etc will stand up and do anything. They are a bunch of hopeless Libtards.
Your thesis is very similar to Bill Whittle’s concept of creating a seperate economy/culture. It deserves to be debated and considered. Interesting.
“I think I qualified my statement by saying that enough states will stand up.”
Maybe six might. Maybe. Don’t mean to be a Debbie Downer but so far not even that many have taken any direct action. I don’t think any have actually passed any of those bills we’ve been watching. Lots of, “Introduced a bill to...”, but none have seem to have passed yet.
I think you will be suprised at how fast the states will step up if the jackboot comes down. Once 5-6 do it the others will take heart and follow like dominoes.
This premise is flawed, states in the south, especially, and some in the mid west are not going to sit idly by while the coasts melt down in chaos. No, they WILL secede. Whether war comes is another story.
We're not organized, we're South Carolina.
There is a big difference between a civil war and a coup d'etat.
A civil war implies too groups that have enough size and military might to fight each other. They can, of course, be very lopsided affairs. It would appear that the US Military completely outclasses the Taliban, but then again it has apparently been very difficult for the US Military to vanquish them.
A coup is a much simpler thing. The Army comes in and deposes the current ruler and life continues. Could a Coup take place in the USA? Your comments suggest that one could, but it seems quite unlikley to me. The military higher ups are too smart to want to own the problems that the POTUS has: budget deficits, the debt, American's declining standard of living, etc. Because of our long history as a Republic I don't think a General would have any legitimacy as the ruler, which probably makes it less attractive to pull off a coup.
As for an actual civil war, that is interesting to contemplate. There have been many fiction books written that include that idea. In most of them have some break-away state or states pull out of the USA. ("Middle America" series, Chappaqua Uprising, Boston T. Party's Molon Labe. Ross's Unintended Consequences, the latter volumes in Matt Braken's Enemies Foreign and Domestic trilogy are set in a post-civil war America where the USA has fractured into several different political entities. Heading deeper into the darkness there is the explicitly racist future civil war scenario in The Brigade trilogy by Covington, and a matching book where the Latino's revolt in LA and form Azatlan.)
Personally I'm in agreement that State vs. State conflict like the first American War Between the States is unlikely, and most of the scearios that call for groups to organize into units as big as we did in the civil war, that just seems highly unlikely.
Tom Chittum's book "Civil War II" is not a novel or fiction, it's an analysis of how the USA is headed to civil war. His experience in Rhodesia and Yugoslavia informs his views, and he argues that no matter what kicks it off societies always shatter along racial and ethnic and religious lines. His view of CWII is therefore various racial groups in different areas fighting each other.
Archy has said for years that the scenario most likely is a dirty war similar to those in South America where factions fought in the dark, but everyone pretended things were normal in some ways in the day. Disappeared people, assassinations, sabotage. Factions will include governments, but also para-governmental groups, small cells of dissidents, unions, gangs.
Bracken's article on the dynamics of the opening phases of such a war is still perhaps the most detailed and well thought out scenario that anyone has come up with:
CW2 Cube: Mapping the Meta Terrain of Civil War 2
Lots of speculative fiction and some interesting non-fiction has been done on this topic. I look forward to reading yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.