Is There A New "War Between the States" On The Horizon? (Editorial)

October 16, 2004 | Gary L. Livacari

[RipSawyer]

"Try to imagine if we have a repeat of the 2004 election where Bush wins the electoral vote but loses the popular vote. Do you really think the Democrats are going to meekly concede again?"


If that was meek concession, I dread the thought of resistance. What do you mean, "meekly concede"?

[mlmr]

No, I actually think that it is possible for conflict, perhaps even armed conflict. There are many outside forces that would like to see the UNION weaken or crack.

[GaryL]

You're probably right, "meekly" is not an accurate word there. But that only reinforces my point. If it was a "violent" reaction the first time, what would the second time be like? In other words, will they just accept the verdict? I'm not so sure.

[The Loan Arranger]

The "Red" States will start out with some advantages similar to what the Confederacy had, namely; a core of militarily well-trained present & former officers and enlisted personnel, better and more numerous weapons, unity of purpose and high ideals. Almost all the major military bases (with the exception of those in California) are in the "Red" States. The "Blue" States will start out with many of the same advantages that the Union had, namely; more money, higher population, better infrastructure and more foreign support. The difference this time is that we are a petroleum (vehicle fuels, LPG, plastics, heating oil, etc) and wood products based economy, and the "Red" has an abundance of both of these. In the high-tech arena, California, Washington State and New York ("Blue")are centers for the industry, but parts of Texas and Arizona ("Red") are also high-tech havens, so that evens out the playing field, somewhat. Many in the Union had an attitude of "erring sisters, depart in peace" that Mr. Lincoln, obviously, did not share. Will succession be relatively peaceful, this time? Hard to say.

[GaryL]

I think it will. As I say in the essay, what's different this time is that it is the North who would be seeking the separation, rather than the South (or a better way to say it, the liberals rather than the conservatives). At the time of the Civil War, the North had a compelling economic reason to keep the South in the union (tariffs, etc.). I'm not so sure that these economic factors would still be in play.

[Dave Hamilton]

There has been an ideological battle between many of the States for years now, and inside quite a few others, you will find that the real pro-Democrat supporters are found in the bigger cities while most level-headed people in the country see through a lot of the BS. Most common-sensical people want the same things, and security is right at the top of the list. Big government, higher taxes, massive welfare for those unwilling to work, passing children who haven't learned up the chain, and not holding people personally responsible for their actions are not.

[Rebelbase]

A shooting war would cause major blue cities to fracture into areas of crime and violence, consuming themselves from within. The resources used to control the internal strife could not be utilized for other use.

[rjmeagle]

I would probably go a step further and say that the potential conflict of ideology will be between suburban/rural America and Urban America. The big cities against everywhere else.

Just a quick thought.

[rjmeagle]

"...is it too far-fetched to think that they will start talking about succeeding the Blue states to form a separate government of which they and their political descendants will forever be in control?"

My view on this is yes, it is too far-fetched to assume secessionism at the state level. Would it not be closer to the realm of possibility that you have regional secessionism? San Francisco Bay Area and NYC come to mind in this scenario. While both these scenarios are not likely, I would postulate that urban secessionism has a higher probability. Massachussetts may be the odd-ball in these scenarios.

We use the term "Red State/Blue State" as if these areas have an overwhelming preponderence of either being liberal or conservative, but in my opinion it is not the case. I believe it is more a regional trait, like the NYC and SF Bay areas. In the case of NYC, it's influence is not only in Manhatten but also in Northern NJ. Same thing goes for Philadelphia where it's influence extends throughout Southeastern PA, Southern NJ and Northern Delaware.

I would love to pursue this discussion further, but I have to go. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Your article is excellent and very thought provoking. Thanks for a good read!!!

[foreverfree]

bump for putting all this in God's hands

[GaryL]

Thanks for your kind remarks!

I'm glad to see that you, like me, enjoy political speculation, even if it's a little bit off the wall! I was hesitant to post this article, as I realize it's pretty far-fetched, but then I thought... what the heck! Maybe there's some other dreamers out there.

I understand what you're saying about a Red or Blue state going one way or the other entirely. But say for the sake of argument that Bush wins and there is a concerted movement for succession coming from the liberal states of the Northeast for the reasons I articulated. My state, Illinois, would vote presumably to go with the Northeastern states, even though most of the state outside of Chicago is conservative.

I then would have the choice of either accepting the new situation or, finding things intolerable, could move to a more conservative state (I already know - I'd go to Virginia!). This would happen all over the country, as people realign themselves ideologically. The end result would be two separate countries, divided mainly by ideology, one heavily liberal and the other conservative. I'm not so sure that this wouldn't be a favorable result, one we could all approve of.

I'm thinking about developing this point further into another article, arguing that having two countries separated in this way - ideologically - would be better than the current situation, where each side tries to force and coerce the other to accept policies they find repulsive. Thanks again!

[rjmeagle]

Well, a couple of things need to listed first:

1. Loyalty to family and friends

2. Loyalty to your community

3. Loyalty to your church, club, etc.

4. Loyalty to your roots (birthplace, childhood memories, et al)

5. Loyalty to your job or career

The above list summarizes why it would be highly unlikely that you would have a mass exodus of conservatives from Blue States to Red States.

During the Civil War, there were no mass exodus due to ideological, moral, or societal pressures. Communities literally fought with each other (Bleeding Kansas comes to mind). Heck, West Virginia was part of Virginia. It became a state in 1863 precisely because this region was against secession and slavery. This immediate point tenuously supports my leaning towards regional secession rather a straight state-by-state secession.

It is also, IMHO, a stretch to think that conservatives or liberals would simply pull up and move to a state that identifies with their ideological preferences precisely because of the loyalties et al that I listed at the beginning of this post.

Currently, I live in Northern MD (not far from Gettysburg) but I am originally from NE PA where I was born and raised. It is also the place that I consider "home" even though I have lived in PA, VA, DC, IL, AR and TX (I've been around). The whole point in THIS paragraph is that I am emotionally attached to my roots in PA and to this part of the country. Many of us identify ourselves according to the region we grew up (just like in the Civil War era, in which most of the citizens identified themselves with the state they were from). My point is that what would prevent me from telling the liberals to get the hell out of Philadelphia, the birth place of this nation and the biggest city in my state? Whether the emotions tied with this is logical or not, it is still an emotional tie.

Friend, I noticed that the time is getting late so I will have to take up this discussion with you another time. Please keep it coming. I too, am enjoying this hypothesis.

[GaryL]

Your points are well taken and I'm just about ready to concede that you're right (or at least closer to the truth). But...

Do you really think that you, me, and many other conservatives would not be willing to migrate to a conservative state after living in a Blue state (me in Illinois, you in Maryland) after, say, ten years of unrestrained liberalism? I get ill just thinking about it! In addition this state that you could move to would be in a union with other conservative states and with a conservative constitution in place.

To put it more graphically, the Blue state union would probably have someone like Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, while we in the Red state union might have Scalia. That's just one aspect of the difference, but think of the ramifications of that filtering down throughout the society.

I think this is a much more mobile society we live in today that at the time of the Civil War, but your points about regional loyalty are certainly well founded. I don't mean to imply that there would be a massive migration from one union to the other - at least not at first - but after ten years of unrestrained liberalism? I'm not so sure... Plus the dynamics are reversed today. This time it would be the Northern states seeking the separation.

Thought you might like to read another "speculative" article I posted a couple weeks ago, to give you a better idea of where I'm coming from! It drew over 1000 views and so far 136 replies.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1227496/posts

As I said, I'm almost ready to concede, but then tell me what you think will be the liberal reaction should Bush win? Their hatred of George Bush and Red state ideology is so intense, that I just can't see them meekly conceding. Is your point that you agree with me that there would be a strong sentiment for separation? If so, then are you simply disagreeing with me as to how you think it would evolve (I'm saying state by state, and you saying small region by small region)? Or do you think the whole idea is preposterous?

[rjmeagle]

A little background about who I am and what has shaped me may help put my perspectives in a better light for you. First, I am a conservative (no surprise there). Secondly, I have a degree in political science and history. I have studied the Civil War period for several years because of my fascination with a country torn apart and Ole Abe. Thirdly, I am a strong believer in traditional values and the Judeo-Christian creed. Finally, my family has been in this great country of ours since pre-Revolutionary times and I can trace at least one ancestor fighting for America's ideals in every war America had a part in since the Revolutionary War.

I guess first I should tell you that I am biased against the disintegration of this great nation (even with the liberals in it). The purpose of the previous paragraph's rather long-worded preamble is to place in context why it is hard for me to envision a division of the nation based on current political boundaries, namely states. I would probably react to America's disintegration in much the same way as our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln did, war! I love the idea that America is America because she is a united democracy.

I know that your original premise is based on a peaceful seperation, but in all honesty, human nature does not "naturally" allow "you go your way and I will go my way". If anything, we are at the very least, territorial hence; hamlets, villages, cities, states and countries. We have a need to be part of a community that has history before it and a future after it. It is this sense of living history and participant community that denies us the ability to say "OK, you go your way and I will go my way" without a fight.

Now, for the political (government) side of the equation. No government in history has ever voluntarily allowed itself to become extinct. The Civil War itself was primarily a battle of states rights vs. central government (the classic Hamilton/Jefferson battle which incidentally extends to this very day in the form of the Republican and Democratic Parties).

Also, in the interest of continuing this discussion I have a question for you which will flip the original discussion around: Has there ever been a "peaceful" civil war?

I look forward to continuing this discussion with you.

[rjmeagle]

I will comment more on this tomorrow.

[GaryL]

I don't know of any peaceful "civil wars" but I know of at least one peaceful separation: Norway from Sweden in 1905. Didn't seem to either of these two countries much harm.

Also, I know of other "successful" separations that weren't peaceful: Ireland from the British Empire, Texas from Mexico, Portugal from Spain, Panama from Columbia.

In the case of Spain from Portugal, succession kept neither Spain nor Portugal from becoming world powers. In fact, it could be argued that secession is what caused their rise as world powers.

More tomorrow on how my feelings toward "Old Abe" and the South have evolved over the past 25 years. Enjoyed reading your interesting genealogy. Talk to you later!

[GaryL]

Looks like we are in agreement on basic political philosophy. The one difference I see thus far is that I wouldn't be upset if eventually the country split into two, whereas this would greatly bother you. I can understand that.

A little background: I've been a serious student of American history for the past twenty five years or so, although my education and degrees are totally unrelated. Being from Illinois, I naturally started out as an avid Lincoln admirer and a Northern partisan. I studied the Civil war period intensely, but I was never a big "battles guy" as many Civil war enthusiasts are. I was always more interested in (as I like to put it) the "personalities and the politics" of the era. And also the real causes.

Over the years, as I became more entrenched in my conservative principles, I found myself starting to "think outside the box" about the Civil war and having more and more sympathy for the side that was fighting for liberty, limited government, and states rights...in other words, the South. I also realized that, as Joseph Sobran has said, it was a tragedy that such sound principles of government got intertwined with such an evil institution as slavery.

I gradually started looking at Lincoln and the North differently and started reading books and articles that articulated the Southern perspective. What put me over the edge for good was Charles Adams' book "When in the Course of Human Events" which argued, among other things, that Lincoln was a tyrant, the Southern desire for succession was morally justified, the North was guilty of serious war crimes, and that slavery was a moral cover used by both sides to mask the real underlying economic causes of the war. Mr. Adams is a Massachusetts liberal from Harvard whose thinking on Lincoln and the war seemed to evolve the same way as mine.

Another clincher was libertarian Thomas DiLorenzo's book "The Real Lincoln" which also painted Lincoln in a very negative light and exposed how the perverse mercantilist philosophy of Henry Clay triumphed in the Lincoln presidency and was the impetus for an avoidable war. I always recommend these books to anyone who wants to see the Civil war from a different perspective.

So now, twenty five years after I started on this journey seeking only the truth, I've come full circle and wish the South had won the war, and even now would like to see the country divided into two! I'm sure you would have good countering arguments and I would certainly enjoy hearing them!

[rjmeagle]

Good Morning!

Unfortunately I am in my office right now so I cannot spend much time at this moment. I will give you my thoughts this evening.

Having a little background on where you and I are coming from certainly helps in understanding our individual perspectives.

Will write later.

[GaryL]

Oh...I forgot to mention another "successful" separation that was not peaceful: United States from Great Britain!

(I'm off on Wednesdays so I have time to spend on the computer!)