FBI and BATF. Not the same thing as the military.pancho wrote:There was a church 10 miles east of Waco whose members might disagree with you.The Annoyed Man wrote:If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.
Surveys of active duty military personnel indicate differently. Some will, yes. But they do not constitute the majority. Now, I can see a situation where, let's say hypothetically, DC wanted to "invade" and suppress the region made up of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana, so they made sure that the TNG, ONG, ANG, and LNG was deployed elsewhere and disarmed, and they'd use NYNG and CANG troops, but even among those the issue might be in doubt. Here is an instructive recruitment map for the year 2007 published by the Heritage Foundation, showing what states contribute the most recruits to the nation's military:bdickens wrote:The Annoyed Man wrote: If there are hostilities, it will be DC who initiates them. And once DC does that, it will be the end of the union because the nation's military is not going to turn against the nation's population.
Yes they will.
Source: Who Serves in the U.S. Military? The Demographics of Enlisted Troops and Officers, by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and James Sherk, http://www.heritage.org/research/report ... orm_anchor
As you can see, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana contribute a higher percentage of total recruits than any other state in the union......15% from those 4 states alone. Add in the southeastern and mountain states, and you've got a total of 50% of the nation's military. When I say that it's not going to happen, that doesn't mean that an administration in DC wouldn't try to make it happen, but the military as a force for internally suppressing an entire region of the U.S. would disintegrate in fairly short order as large numbers would either mutiny and turn on their chain of command, or simply refuse to obey orders. And that dysfunction would be heightened if the states to be suppressed were among those who contribute more troops to the military than the others. Furthermore, since troops from all states tend to be stationed wherever the military needs them at any given time, many Texans and Oklahomans are stationed in California and New York and other states, while many of their counterparts are stationed in Texas and Oklahoma. Regional homogeneity works well when all are pulling for a common goal. But what happens to units located outside of TX/OK/AR/LA, when 43% of those troops are from the states which are to be invaded if TX/OK/AR/LA wanted to secede together? If they either mutiny, refuse to follow orders, or are rounded up and incarcerated, those units are automatically down to 57% strength.....certainly administratively ineffective, and approaching combat ineffective. I submit that troops from TX/OK/AR/LA would not be so enthusiastic about invading ID/MT/WY/CO.
In the 1860s, the northern states had the advantage in population and industrial base over the southern states, AND the north had it's own large food producing areas. Today, those states which favor a strong top-down federal government and which least respect the Constitution still have the largest populations, but it is no longer true that they either self-sufficient for food, nor that they control the nation's manufacturing. Large parts of the heartland could go either way, and are also self-sufficient if need be. The old abandoned factories of the rust belt have been demolished or in disrepair for so long that they cannot be thrown back into operation without an investment of decades in labor and cash.......and oil....which those states do not yet produce in a quantity sufficient to sustain a new industrial renaissance. And, in the 1860s, industry was not oil nor electricity dependent. Today, it is, and oil production in southern states is high and the southern states are not dependent upon the north for power generation.
This is a simplified picture, but my point is that those clear advantages that the north had over the south in the Civil War no longer really apply today. And sociologically, we are a much different country today than we were back then, and I don't mean just in the obvious issue of slavery. We are more tribal today than ever before. The hyphenation of Americans, the encouragement of multiculturalism to replace a national cultural identity, the gradual abolishment of religious ties which once bound the largest majority of Americans together in one main religious faith (denominational differences notwithstanding), the abolishment of the idea of English as the official language of the state and replacing it with multilingual accommodations in government and education, etc., etc., etc.........ALL of these things have divided us to the point where people in one region truly don't give much of a damn about people in other regions. There is even intra-regional hostility today that transcends the mere competitive rivalry of even just 30 years ago. Does anyone think that a soldier from Oregon or New York is truly willing to die for the cause of keeping California or Texas in the union if one of those states decided to secede? I don't think so. And I don't think the old calculus of fighting not for country, but for the guy in the foxhole next to yours would apply much in this situation. How does a soldier from Oregon or New York feel about having a soldier from Texas in the foxhole next to him, when Texas is the target of their advance? How does the Texan feel about the Oregonian next to him being willing to fire upon the Texan's cousins?
And again, I want to stress that this is not what I want. I remember a very different America from the one that exists today. I would like very much to see that America make a comeback. I just don't think it is possible, given the moral degeneration of the culture underpinning a political system which requires morality in order to function. Our founders assured us many times over that morality and virtue are necessary to the proper functioning of our form of government, that this form is suitable for no other kind of people, and they have turned out to be prescient. We are dysfunctional today exactly to the degree of our cultural immorality. Everything that is wrong with us today is directly traceable to the near absence of virtue at all levels of the culture—from the publicly political, to the privately personal. The devil has had his way with us, and pending some kind of miraculous revival of faith, he will continue to do so. In fact, my Bible predicts it.
In the absence of those common ties which bind us, those mystic cords of memory that Lincoln referred to, we have nothing left which can hold together a nation the geographical size of ours with a population as large as ours over the long haul. We no longer have a unifying cultural identity. The largest part of our people don't even know our history anymore. People forget that some of our states are the size of entire nations. Texas is 10% larger than France, and almost twice the size of Germany. Peacefully allowing regions of like minded contiguous states to attain at least partial if not total regional autonomy is the only way to avoid massive loss of life.....which frankly, I don't think either end of the political spectrum is willing to contemplate when the reality of the situation hits them. With the exception of a fairly small group of dedicated fascists in the democrat party, I don't think most of the U.S. will have the stomach for what it will take to hold it all together over the long haul.
I don't think that means that we just thrown in the towel and give up. The work that people like Charles Cotton do at the national level is absolutely essential in the preservation of our rights as long as we have a nation. They are the latter day Thomas Jeffersons and John Adamses who spent years at the British and French courts trying to protect the rights of their countrymen, with an imperious Obama the latter day king. But there eventually came a day when Jefferson and Adams had to come home, because there was no longer any percentage in trying to get the king to see their side of things. That is where we are headed as a nation with Washington D.C.
It's like expecting England to give up the American Colonies without a fight.