People keep talking about “Federalizing the National Guard” and now you’ve got other States pledging their NG to Texas in defiance of the Supreme Court (see image).
So is this what CW2 looks like?
P.S. I’m a Brit
Highly unlikely this is what the civil war would be like. It’s not a state v state thing necessarily although that might be a small part of it. In the first civil war, the south unified and its people largely supported the war, except their slaves. It’s unlikely something like that will happen again. It’s not impossible but unlikely.
What is much more likely is rural v city. Even in red states, cities are blue and will often vote for blue policies. Rural areas are where things get dicey. They’ve been largely left behind by the surge in industry and general expansion of the capitalist economy we currently have (they’ve had a lot of businesses (including grocery stores) close because more people are leaving, and their rural towns are frequently having their hospitals close leaving large swaths of areas where the nearest hospital is an hour away). As such, they’ve got a grudge against the cities. What’s likely to happen is rural counties and their local governments trying to cut off their food supply, starving the cities to win the battle. There’s tons more possibilities, but this one I think is the one that’s got the highest likelihood.
Another possibility that is scary, but is highly dependent on the party of the people in power, is the government using their power to actually strike the cities, like in Syria where Assad bombed and used chemical weapons on his own people. Syria is actually a pretty good example of what more modern civil wars are like, or can be like. Governments v rebels and militias, and cities v rural (although there’s much less rural land in Syria).
If you’re interested, the podcast It Could Happen Here has a great first season where they go over possible disasters including a civil war and a pandemic (it was actually made in 2019 so before covid). It’s really helpful and can teach a lot, especially for an outsider from across the pond. It also does a lot better job giving an explanation and actual sources.
Hope this helps since it didn’t seem like you were getting a real answer.
Another thing the world ought to know is that the folks who are identified by “red” and “right” in America are in the minority.
Significantly so.
However our voting system uses geography / land as a modifier so while there are less of them they occupy a larger land mass and have an outsized vote strength because of that.
When total votes in a state can be split 45-55 but the delegates go 90-10 there is a problem
Another fun thing about that is that most folks who identify “red” or “right” actually aren’t paying enough attention to know that. Go ask them, they think people like them make up 70% or more of the country. If they do try to activate their little civil war they are going to find themselves very quickly surrounded by folks who do not like them at all, as their expected 200-million strong army ends up actually only being 1.5 million people spread out over 30,000+ square miles. Watching the realization dawn on them might actually even be fun if it weren’t a herald of Troubles for America.
Another thing the world ought to know is that the folks who are identified by “red” and “right” in America are in the minority.
Significantly so.
This isn’t accurate. In 2020, 29% of voters identified as Republican, 33% as Democrat, and 34% as independent. There certainly were more Democrats, but only by a 5% margin.
Playing up exaggerated differences between the number of Democrats and Republicans and emphasizing the “we outnumber you” rhetoric is extremist and should be avoided. It makes you a part of the problem.
The geographical separation of slave states by an actual border allowed the first Civil War to take place on a stage perfectly suited for traditional warfare. North/South division and the formal joining of the Confederacy by state governments kept it all straightforward. Point South and tell the generals “Go.”
It definitely won’t be that simple again.
What is much more likely is rural v city.
Isn’t it even more likely trump disciples vs reasonable people?
This is oversimplifying the problem. Democrats from urban areas have failed for decades to adequately address the needs and concerns of rural voters. When one party ignores you (and often speaks of you with open contempt), it’s a no-brainer that you would be inclined to vote for the party that caters to your concerns. The Democrats handed rural voters to Trump on a golden platter.
“Fuck yeah, secession!” Says the Texan from the comfort of their lounge chair, beer in hand.
These people are too comfortable to ever be willing to die for their stupid ideals. All it took was one MAGA idiot to get blasted on Jan 6th and then they all scattered like roaches. As soon as their lives were on the line, it was no longer a matter of grave importance. They all firmly believed that democracy was at stake, but were unwilling to fight for it to the death because they somehow must have known that it was bullshit, somewhere in the back of their pea-sized brains, they knew.
By the time Texas starts asking people to show up to mustering fields, rifle in hand, the facade will fall apart. Biden doesn’t need to do anything. This sideshow of bluster and saber-rattling will fall apart on it’s own.
Also, millions of people living in Texas are not originally from Texas and have no particular allegiance to Texas.
Also millions of people in Texas and are FROM Texas don’t want this.
Also, as a native Texan that still lives here because it’s not feasible to leave, I feel no particular allegiance to Texas. This government doesn’t represent anything I stand for – it’s infuriating. Fuck Texas, and fuck proud Texans.
Could they not at least bunch up a bit so it’s easier to build a wall around them?
I said this in another thread-
Most Americans aren’t interested or even capable of fighting in a civil war. When you live paycheck-to-paycheck, you’re not going to abandon your family to fight on the front lines.
And a huge percentage of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck.
Texas would have to have a draft.
Good luck with that.
You’re wrong though. The general public is more likely to engage in civil unrest when they’re struggling. The reality though is that while many Americans might be living paycheck to paycheck, they’re not poor and not struggling. They are just bad at managing their finances and they have a lot to lose.
If you have more to lose than to gain, you won’t participate in a civil war. But when you’re a slave working in a cotton field, you have nothing to lose, only something to gain.
The idea that your average American is so poor is just laughable.
I’m just imagining the sales of golf carts or those scooters going through the roof because Americans cant run a couple of miles during a civil war.
Ahaha! That’s a good one!
Can we just have a normal, boring year for once, please? I’m so tired…
Can we just have a normal, boring year for once, please? I’m so tired…
I’m right there with you.
But at least you can think of this to console you: You’re not actually fighting in a world/civil war, down in some troops trench somewhere, reading this (at least that’s my hope for you).
Other generations have had to go through major wars, but so far we’ve been dodging that bullet, for the most part.
Things could be a lot worse.
Serious question. Couldn’t Texas just hold a referendum to scede?
Abraham Lincoln thought they could not. In his inaugural address, he opined that the union was formed for perpetuity and that if the accession of a state to the union required the consent of all other states, so would its secession. He was, among other things, a lawyer so he usually knew what he was talking about.
Serious question. Couldn’t Texas just hold a referendum to scede?
Abraham Lincoln thought they could not.
I have a vague memory of Texas having a unique status, versus the other States, when it comes to succeeding from the Union.
That there is some kind of (state?) constitutional clause that would actually allow them to succeed if they wanted to.
Has something to do with the fact that they were their own country for a very small period of time, before joining the Union.
Can’t remember any details though, was something I read a long time ago; apologies.
Legal Eagle just released a video on exactly this topic. Spoiler: the whole Texas being allowed to secede is basically a myth and pretty much all scholars agree that Texas nor any other state has the ability to leave except by a mutually agreed dissolution or via revolution.
I adore Legal Eagle.
The thing about law though, is that it’s just a framework of written social contracts between rational parties agreeing to abide by the terms and consequences.
Reality is a bit different.
Texas could halt physical transport of goods/services. Refuse to buy US imports. Stop collecting tax revenue. Gun down federal employees that don’t swear Texan allegiance.
It doesn’t really matter what legal papers say, when it comes to actions.
Sure - there may be consequences for such “illegal” state actions, and the documented illegality would be articulated as official justification after administering such consequences.
But that also only matters if Texas is defeated … in the unlikely event they “win,” - they’d write their own narrative with legal justification.
how would texas win against the full federal military that has nukes and drones?
Legal Eagle just released a video on exactly this topic.
Love his videos! I’ll be sure to check it out.
Even if they voted for it and ratified it they couldn’t over turn it or legally secede from the USA.
In the 1869 case Texas v. White, the court held that individual states could not unilaterally secede from the Union and that the acts of the insurgent Texas Legislature — even if ratified by a majority of Texans — were “absolutely null.”
When Texas entered the Union, “she entered into an indissoluble relation,” Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote for the court. “All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.”
Chase added: “The ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law.”
Another source of confusion and misinformation over the years has been language in the 1845 annexation resolution that Texas could, in the future, choose to divide itself into “New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas.” But the language of the resolution says merely Texas could be split into five new states. It says nothing of splitting apart from the United States. Only Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union, which last occurred in 1959 with the admission of Alaska and Hawaii.
Good write-up. Thanks for sharing.
Wait. The first civil war ended? /s
— enslaved person being emancipated an extra two years late in Texas on Juneteenth
— enslaved person being emancipated in 1942 Beeville, Texas
enslaved person being emancipated in 1942 Beeville, Texas
From the Wiki article…
In September 1942, Alfred Irving, who is believed to be one of the final chattel slaves in the United States, was freed at a farm near Beeville. Alex L. Skrobarcek and his daughter, Susie, were indicted by a federal grand jury in Laredo, Texas on November 9, 1942.[11][12][13][14] The pair were found guilty in Federal court in Corpus Christi, Texas on Thursday, March 18th, 1943. Alex L. Skrobarcek was sentenced to only four years in prison, while his daughter, Susie Skrobarcek, received two years. [15]
Eh. Something clearly needs to be done, and the concerns aren’t being addressed (and haven’t been for awhile). Congress and the senate haven’t done anything aside from attempt to impeach hunter Biden (from who knows what) or show off his dick.
Doubtful it’s any kind of civil war, but Texas (and other states) is being hit hard by the number of immigrants, and if the federal government can’t (or won’t?) do anything to curb it, makes sense that they will do something on their own.
but Texas (and other states) is being hit hard by the number of immigrants, and if the federal government can’t (or won’t?) do anything to curb it, makes sense that they will do something on their own.
That’s the thing though, they aren’t. Things aren’t worse than they were, this is a manufactured crisis because Republicans need some kind of tangible policy to lie about to their voters for the upcoming election. Just like the immigrant caravan which disappeared as suddenly as it appeared (as in it never existed) the previous election.
I don’t think this is an accurate view of the current border situation, but it’s a view that one might have consuming media from a different kind of media bubble than the Fox News kind.
There really is a situation with migrants who cross the river illegally and immediately turn themselves in and claim asylum. This isn’t a new situation, but the numbers have gotten worse over the last year.
The migrant caravans, plural, really did and do exist. What tends to happen is they gather into thousands strong mass marches in and around Tapachula, after crossing from Guatemala to Mexico. So these big marches start towards the US in southern Mexico, but they tend to break up and thin out over the 1800 mile journey to Texas.
If anyone could organize a mass foot march over the whole distance, that would be an extremely impressive feat of logistics. But that hasn’t happened yet.
Conclusions: this border situation is not completely made up. Many right wing conspiracies going around have some kind of kernel of truth to then.
And some mainstream media outlets (I have this experience with NPR in particular) have started to seemingly impose total blackouts on not just the conspiracy ideas, but also on the little nuggets of true news that get them started.
I appreciate hearing a differing view from my own here, genuinely.
I listen to NPR frequently and I have heard many segments about the border and especially asylum seekers.
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/12/1212058889/migrants-u-s-southern-border-historic-numbers-why
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/22/1221006083/immigration-border-election-presidential
I see this a lot, “the liberal media doesn’t want you to know!” or “why isn’t anyone talking about this!” meanwhile everyone including the lefty sources are indeed talking about it.
The problem is, only one party wants to do anything to actually ease the crisis. Republicans are a half step away from suggesting land mines at the border because trying to escape to the land of the free for a better life is illegal, and that apparently should mean death for you.
Affirmative Asylum Processing with USCIS
To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.
https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum/obtaining-asylum-in-the-united-states
Hm… I should get a gun. And a passport.
Skip the gun. No civilized country will let you have it.
Finland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, etc.
The only thing is that they won’t allow you to import guns you already have. You have to buy new ones there
It’s not a totally unreasonable impression, but no, this will not turn into a second civil war. The Guard units of each state can be called up for federal duty. The National Guard is part of the US Department of Defense and thus ultimately answers to the DoD and the US president as commander in chief. The US military has multiple components, including regular services (eg the full time Army), reserve components (eg US Army Reserve) and National Guard components. The latter two are part-time military with one weekend per month training duty plus an annual training. Guards members and Reservists hold regular full time jobs.
The Guard units are deployable by the governors of their respective states, and so can be used in emergency situations like natural disasters. They have also been deployed against what have been perceived as riots that threaten lives and properties of the individual states.
However, they are subject to activation by order of the US president and they fall under the national command authority. Guard personnel take the same oath to the constitution as other military personnel, and cannot legally refuse federal activation. Guards personnel would be subject to courts martial and face potentially extreme penalties including being discharged from service under criminal conditions, being stripped of rank and benefits, and jail time in federal prison. This would be what we call a career limiting rule.
So, if push comes to shove, Biden can activate the NG and order them to stand down or to implement policies to maintain order. Thinking the NG units and in particular their commanders would disobey a presidential order because they just love their state governor and hate the president so much is getting into Turner Diaries levels of right wing apocalyptic fantasy.
.
I think it’s possible that there will be resentment, but those with rank would be risking everything for zero gain. It would be determined by the people who wear the birds and the stars, and although there have certainly been high ranking officers who have engaged in conduct we might consider treasonous, it’s simply not going to be a common enough occurrence.
A Handmaid’s Tale scenario, where the US goes down the path of a Christian theocracy, is a possibility that concerns me,
.
You also have to factor in the fact that the military today is not a bunch of guys with rifles. It is carrier battle groups, fighter jets, sophisticated artillery systems, and other platforms that require massive supply chains to deploy and maintain. That’s just what modern warfare is. US aircraft carriers alone are crewed by 5000+ people.
Raytheon, Northrop, and Lockheed are not going to side with Ohio against the US government. The question is about civil war, not about a single military unit going rogue until the members are arrested or killed. Keeping planes in the air and tanks running requires a lot more than Ohio can do. The Feds spend about a trillion dollars per year on the military, and some Confederate missile battery is going to be in trouble once they run low on things to shoot and when their vehicles start to break down.
I’m not a fan of the military industrial complex, to say the least, but it’s an absolutely necessary part of warfare today.
.
All of which misses a critical point:
The forming of the Confederacy wasn’t “legal” either.
We can handwave away concerns about mounting threats of violence by citing regulation and law, but none of that actually addresses the underlying issue that if these people want to start shit, they will find an avenue.
And let’s also not sit here, in 2024, and assume the institutions, norms, checks, and intended safeguards in our system will always work when they need to. We’ve seen far, far too many breakdowns and failures in our system over the last decade to believe otherwise.
That’s what frustrates me so much about the framing of the situation we’re in right now: most people - and the vast majority of major media organizations - are fully intent on presenting this as “normal”, but it’s very fucking clearly not. It’s assumed by so many that the rules will simply be followed… and then they turn around and cover Trump, whose whole bit is to not follow the rules because he doesn’t feel like it and wants to stay in power forever. It’s like being unconcerned about standing 3 feet away from an uncaged, unleashed siberian tiger because someone once told you at one point that it had been “trained”.
I mean, isn’t this kind of keeping with the theme of US civil wars so far?
If I was creating a civil war bingo card based on history of civil wars in the US, “starts over how people with darker skin can be abused or not” would certainly have been on it.
There was a very real economic driver for slavery. Totally morally bankrupt, but it’s a reason. This is pure malice for the sake of a culture war.
From what I’ve heard, the supreme court decision was mostly about the feds having access to the border, and the ability to cut down the razor wire, rather than any specific opposition to the razor wire existing in and of itself. I would wager this whole deal is mostly just a kind of political play, to try and egg biden into doing something stupid, while simultaneously keeping up the appearance that everyone at the head of these states is doing something dangerous, anti-institutional, and counter-cultural, even though they’re all kind of inherently unable to do anything along those lines just as a matter of their positions.
Everybody’s correct when they say that the political divides in this country are less clear-cut, but I also don’t think that the radicalization that we’ve seen, as a matter of perspective from being in online space, necessarily reflects reality. I think if you look at most people, most people want social security of some kind, and want healthcare of some kind, and want drug legalization of some kind, and want us to stop fighting wars in some form. Those are all kind of generalities, because the specific mechanism by which people want those things achieved differs from person to person. It’s very fractured as a matter of course, as a matter of how our political system and society is set up, and the ruling class has taken advantage of this to enact a divide and conquer strategy, where they can selectively promote whatever ideological positions benefit them the most, and cordon everyone off into a relatively small set of solutions over which they have a high amount of control. Rather than, you know, what a good democracy might do, which is come to a compromise solution, that everyone but the most extreme propagandized radicals might be kind of okay with. There is a reason why lots of conservatives like communism, as long as you use the right words. Both parties attempt to be mostly “populist” parties. This is all kind of obvious, right, but people understate the degree to which it’s a deliberate thing, and the overstate the degree to which it’s been successful, you know, which isn’t surprising, because, again, serves the interests of the powerful. People aren’t, broadly, morons, people have realized that this is all the case. That’s mostly what the “radicalization” that you’ve seen online has been, people just realizing that they hate these shitass solutions that aren’t really compromise solutions. See how everyone is cripplingly disappointed with the democratic party, and also how, likewise, conservatives are consistently disappointed with their own party, as well, and for many of the same reasons, barring the extreme radicals.
Most people are focused on how the internet divides people into radicalized swaths and conspiracy theorists, which is true, but even the mainstream monopolized internet is kind of a good tool for mass mobilization. See the occupy movement and the arab spring for older examples, for more recent examples, maybe the george floyd protests, or the french retirement protests. The only risk of these is kind of that they more easily get co-opted as a result of their visibility, i.e. “defund the police” gets turned into an argument for “fund the police”. If you were an asshole, you could cite charlottesville, or jan 6th, for examples of internet mobilization, but those are relatively smaller scales of things, compared to the others, which were more popular, they just got disproportionate media attention relative to their size, and had disproportionate political effects.
I think if we’re looking at the true, extreme political radicals, we’re seeing them come about as a result of a kind of well-oiled engine. I’m not gonna say that this is an institutional kind of thing, and it’s maybe more of a third level effect of active decisions, but it’s still something that, nonetheless, has been deliberately constructed. 4chan is funded by a japanese toy company and a hands off japanese internet techbro, and is administrated by some former american military freak who’s deliberately organized the site. The more radical offshoots, that use the same source code, tend to be funded by oil money, and political action committees, but through second-level effects, where they fund some small level conservative actor, and then they prop up the space. Which churns out some radical terrorists that are capable of your more fucked up bombings, and shootings, and controlled and coordinated protests. And then you kind of get military people at almost every level of this, in lower numbers, who act to control the space.
I dunno what I mean to extrapolate from all of this, but yeah. There’s probably not going to be a civil war.
Apologies, but too verbose and meandering to gain insight/understanding from (and I tried). Also, its murder trying to read that on a phone (vs PC monitor) to boot.
Appreciate the attempt though, thank you for that.
I don’t see how the national guard isn’t already federal, it’s the national guard, not the state guard. They get called up just like regular military for wars.
Cut off their money, court martial them, dishonorable discharge, take away their guns and vehicles. These belong to the military, not Texas.
The national guard is part of the military, so funded and supported by the feds. Unlike normal army units though, each state or territory has its own national guard unit under the command of the governor. The intention is to give each state the power to quickly respond to emergency situations without needing federal approval. They’re the successors to the old state militias, but have much stronger federal ties now.
Unlike normal army units though, each state or territory has its own national guard unit under the command of the governor.
What’s the chain of command?
Does it stop at the Governor, or does it go from the Governor to the President?
Do they swear an allegiance to the state Constitution, or to the Federal Constitution?
At current, this is all posturing. If Biden does engage the military to stop them. Perhaps lock up the governors for treason, maybe it could escalate somewhat. If something did happen that was in the line of being more serious, it wouldn’t be a long incursion as long as the military obeyed the commander in chief. The national guard is absolutely no match for even a small slice of the might of the US military.
If something does happen, hopefully they’ll shut it down quickly and bloodlessly, maybe finally gather enough strength to enable some Germany type of anti-fascism laws.
We need to fix gerrymandering, we need to fix people screwing with elections. We need to put some strong protections against the propaganda and opinion pieces flowing out of all the news outlets. We need to force free non-political basic education to the entire f****** country so people can make some informed decisions about s***.
I’m tired of everybody looking at politics like it’s a f****** football game.
We need to put some strong protections against the propaganda and opinion pieces flowing out of all the news outlets.
Something tells me this one is a non-starter, as any new laws will slam up against the Constitution, over and over again.
Having said that, I would love to at least seen a real-time label, in a large font size, on any monitor/tv that specifies that what’s being shown is an opinion piece, and not a factual article/show.
A lot of you all must be too young to remember. This isn’t a new thing for Texas to do. They threatened to secede at least once (maybe twice) while Obama was president. Once it was straight out of the North Korean playbook, claiming a training exercise the military was conducting was a cover for a military invasion of Texas.
Texas has made an issue over their independence and God-given right to be Texas, in defense of
theirthe right to own chattel slavery since their first secession. From Mexico. In 1836.Texas reconfirmed their desire to die on the hill of their divine right to own people, by seceding from the US in 1861.
After the civil war, Texas was a haven for the Confederates - and their ideology has been fomenting ever since
They’ve been talking of secession openly since at least the 1990s.
I think this is the first time since the civil war that other states have involved their national guards in support of a hotbed issue that could lead to a secession.
Edit: correction to grammatical error.
And thats why I’m not worried about them doing anything other than what they’re already doing. They know they would be fucked if they leave.
And if they do? Well then we deal with it when that time comes. Hopefully a bunch of left leaning people leave, including my brother and his wife, and a bunch of MAGAts can go there and talk about how much they love America while also leaving it.
The older I get the more I eyeroll at the political posturing. It’s definitely worse than when I was younger, but also it’s all happened before. It’s just loud people trying to be loud to keep us all afraid and obediently going to work, then every 4 years it gets loud again so we vote for who they want us to.
Real convenient the border is such a huge issue a few months before the election.
Of course we still have to take it seriously, the minute we let our guard down they start implementing stuff, look at roe v wade, but even then they didn’t know what to do after that. It’s all about staying in power for them
So much this.