Is the USA going to Break Apart?

[Termite2]

The army was already there on other business.

I think only in Little Rock, Arkansas in 57-58.

Actually, Grant had to send in troops to South Carolina in 1876 [Redshirt movement] to help out the Federal Marshals in destroying the KKK. There were enough troops in Louisana to destroy the White League during the same time frame
Federal troops were used in Arkansas 1957, Alabama 1963 & 1965, Mississippi 1962 [ most of the time, federalized National Guard ]
The legality for using Federal troops in states that are violating Federal law comes from the Enforcement Acts of 1870

 

[chs1971]

Actually, Grant had to send in troops to South Carolina in 1876 [Redshirt movement] to help out the Federal Marshals in destroying the KKK. There were enough troops in Louisana to destroy the White League during the same time frame
Federal troops were used in Arkansas 1957, Alabama 1963 & 1965, Mississippi 1962 [ most of the time, federalized National Guard ]
The legality for using Federal troops in states that are violating Federal law comes from the Enforcement Acts of 1870

I'm pretty sure it was the 101st Airborne that went to Little Rock and the rest were National Guard, big difference.

This is certainly not my area of expertise though.

 

[cabezadecaballo]

I was looking for this, sported on a co-worker's vehicle irl, online to share -

- when I found this. It sums up things nicely

 

[lotr10]

:laugh:



Marijuana legalization is far from a partisan issue.

Just to be clear in case the bolded/italicized passages in my post hadn't already clued you in, those were quotes from the articles I linked to, not my statements.

Now was the author using hyperbole to compare the current situation to firing on Fort Sumter? Maybe, but the issue is real and the longer we ignore the centrifugal forces tearing us apart the harder it will be to keep it all together if a spark should set it off.

 

[lotr10]

Actually, Grant had to send in troops to South Carolina in 1876 [Redshirt movement] to help out the Federal Marshals in destroying the KKK. There were enough troops in Louisana to destroy the White League during the same time frame
Federal troops were used in Arkansas 1957, Alabama 1963 & 1965, Mississippi 1962 [ most of the time, federalized National Guard ]
The legality for using Federal troops in states that are violating Federal law comes from the Enforcement Acts of 1870

Rather than diving into the minutia of whether the 1950's/1960's saw an equally dangerous rise in the forces trying to tear the country apart as is happening today, do you agree with or disagree with the idea that TODAY we are less able to deal with those forces because we are far less united than we were in the 50's/60's?

 

[lotr10]

I was looking for this, sported on a co-worker's vehicle irl, online to share -

- when I found this. It sums up things nicely

In many ways Cabe this is the crux of the matter. You have an irrational opposition calling for the impeachment of President Trump not because he has done anything wrong but because they don't like his style and policies. Don't they realize that what they're proposing is a slow motion coup that if successful could be the spark that breaks the country?

 

[USA70PP]

^^^
I don't think they care.

 

[Rohbino]

Rather than diving into the minutia of whether the 1950's/1960's saw an equally dangerous rise in the forces trying to tear the country apart as is happening today, do you agree with or disagree with the idea that TODAY we are less able to deal with those forces because we are far less united than we were in the 50's/60's?

While there were forces that arose in that time frame, the Vietnam War, for better or worse, also unified the country somewhat.

The whole notion of "forces trying to tear the country apart" is quite extreme. Any healthy democracy has opposing viewpoints. Ideally there are compromises made and the end result is an aggregate, or sum, policy that is better than the individual pieces. The problem today is that no one wants to compromise. Democrats and Republicans are both equally guilty of being unwilling to compromise or listen to each other. 45 is as guilty as anyone. He has created an environment of intolerance and divisiveness.

Throughout history, in all societies, the unwillingness to compromise or being able to accept opposing viewpoints has aided in ushering in oligarchies. An oligarchy is a very dangerous thing but I get the idea that many now supporting the "new GOP" would be fine with an oligarchy.

I liked Kasich to win the GOP nomination and I have to think that if he had won the country would be a lot more unified right now.

 

[19AL63]

There might be a few Democrats that would have like to have Kasich as president with his sometimes more liberal views. Now for the truth it did not matter who the R was that got elected the D,s in both the House and senate would not work with or compromise on anything. My have we not seen the D's be in favor of something and once Trump says this might be a good idea 100% opposition by the D's. Most of the time the D's are not willing to even come to the table and talk. They find it much better to just resist and yell impeach 45!

 

[the_big_toe]

I find it interesting that so far, the things that have riled up the left the most seem to have been issues where the Trump administration has ...


... threatened to actually enforce laws that were on the books before he was elected. I'm talking about immigration and federal marijuana laws.

Perhaps if liberals are so upset that these laws are actually being enforced, they might look to the legislature to actually change the laws. :shrug:

Or is that being unreasonable? :help:

 

[eastisbest]

When you're not united against a common enemy I don't think it's rare for the internal differences to magnify. Big diff between the 50s and now in that regard.

I don't think we're headed for a "separation " of any sort. Can you imagine California trying to defend their border from anyone that just wished to cross it? Any of the Western states?

If selling to a different country, one with few options such as California, Colorado would be jacking up the cost of their water enough to become a top ten economy, or cripple Californias.
Texas would spend more of their money building that wall around their border than even their economy could keep up with. All depends upon how vindictive the neighboring states, wished to be.


Other than Hawaii, who wouldn't care if they're poor and isn't really at risk of invasion in this day and age or Alaska who doesn't really need us, I don't see enough positives for even the politically extreme state to benefit from a separation.

 

[Crusaders]

California is bordered to the east by pure desert. The few who make it should get a medal.

As far as water, California would be better off buying from British Columbia. Of course, once socialism took hold there, people would flee en masse, solving the water issue.

 

[USA70PP]

When we were at the Post Graduate School some years ago I remember a comment someone made out there. "We don't have a shortage of water, we have an over abundance of faucets."

 

[eastisbest]

^^^
lol, hadn't heard that one.

California is bordered to the east by pure desert. The few who make it should get a medal.

.

Whole lot of medals to be given out on the southern border then. I think you're right about the socialist aspect. California as a state and California as a country, everything else the same would still be to different liking. If people think as a country they wouldn't take a dictatorish persona, with THEIR crime rate? Be interesting to see who eventually comes to rule the place.

 

[chs1971]

the Vietnam War, for better or worse, also unified the country somewhat.

!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[chs1971]

Can you imagine California trying to defend their border from anyone that just wished to cross it? Any of the Western states?

Why would they want to start doing that?

 

[lotr10]

Thoughtful comments so far. A couple of thoughts as I read through peoples posts:

* If the country were to break up I think it would be more like Brexit then the Civil War of 1860.

* The practical common sense of how well a region could actually handle independence is often overlooked in the heat of the moment of breaking up. Keep in mind that Quebec barely avoided leaving Canada even though by all accounts it would have been an economic disaster for them to leave.

* The breakup of Yugoslavia might be an unfortunate but not unrealistic model for how this country could break apart.

* The lack of a common enemy has thwarted our unity compared to the 1950's as EastisBest noted. But I would argue that our current disunity isn't for lack of a common enemy. That enemy is clearly Islamic Extremism. But because our divisions are so deep we can't agree on a common enemy even as they try to slaughter us in our own country.

 

[Termite2]

Rather than diving into the minutia of whether the 1950's/1960's saw an equally dangerous rise in the forces trying to tear the country apart as is happening today, do you agree with or disagree with the idea that TODAY we are less able to deal with those forces because we are far less united than we were in the 50's/60's?

No; there has always been a divide going back to the founding of the country. There have been racial, religious, and economic divides in the past which were far worse
The press,as an example; were far more partisan in the past. The idea of an impartial press is a recent development and in practice, largely a fiction.

 

[chs1971]

California is bordered to the east by pure desert. The few who make it should get a medal.

I know. Hardly anyone can cross Interstates 8, 10, 15, 40, & 80.

 

[Gh0st]

I know. Hardly anyone can cross Interstates 8, 10, 15, 40, & 80.

That's not what he was saying. If you have to import very basic things like water then the most expensive place to live simply becomes more expensive. Or the country of California goes into overwhelming debt and basically a 3rd world nation.

 

[eastisbest]

Originally Posted by eastisbest
Can you imagine California trying to defend their border from anyone that just wished to cross it? Any of the Western states?

Why would they want to start doing that?

You know any countries without border control? They all defend their borders. Maybe there's something behind you're question that you're not stating?

 

[Rohbino]

!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Perhaps your response is appropriate to what I wrote as "unified" was probably a poor choice of words. Notice, though, my wording in bold. My choice of wording, "better or worse" and "somewhat" is meant to be my acknowledgment of the fact that it was a contentious time in our country. I was only born toward the end of the United States' involvement in the Vietnam War (1974 and I believe we ended our involvement in 1975) so my knowledge of how things were at that time only comes from what I have read, been taught in school, and heard about from my parents, etc. I would posit, though, that in some regards the country was more unified then. The majority of the country, by the end of our involvement in the war, believed that we should not be involved. That was a unifying factor.

While there were forces that arose in that time frame, the Vietnam War, for better or worse, also unified the country somewhat.

Also, as lotr notes below, and as EastisBest stated, a common enemy can unify a country or any group of people. Throughout the history of our involvement in Vietnam, many view communism as a common "enemy." Some also viewed it as something that shouldn't concern the country. The two groups were unified around their own beliefs. In my memory, the most unifying time for our country against a common enemy was after 9/11/2001. It was unfortunate that Islamic Extremism extracted such a large death toll and, perhaps more damaging to our country, put our sense of security into doubt. That is the goal of terrorism and on their end, they accomplished what they wanted. As a result, and for better or worse, we became more unified.

* The lack of a common enemy has thwarted our unity compared to the 1950's as EastisBest noted. But I would argue that our current disunity isn't for lack of a common enemy. That enemy is clearly Islamic Extremism. But because our divisions are so deep we can't agree on a common enemy even as they try to slaughter us in our own country.

 

[Rohbino]

The press,as an example; were far more partisan in the past. The idea of an impartial press is a recent development and in practice, largely a fiction.

45 and his administration don't care about Freedom of Speech. If any message contradicts the message that they want, it is discounted and attempts at suppression are made. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"


Freedom of speech is included in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. It's not surprising the 45 attempts to limit the scope of speech and shape the message that is heard as he is clearly not a Constitutional scholar.

Censorship and speech suppression is very dangerous. It is what has occurred in dictatorships in the past. The citizens of this country will never allow it to happen and this is to the chagrin of 45.

 

[eastisbest]

I think the major reason we are NOT united against Islamic Extremism is the faction more united against Islam and Muslims in general. It muddies the water for the majority who separate people based upon their actions, not the name or cherry-picked passages of their religion. This is a far majority of the country intimidated that speaking out against extremists could get them lumped in with those speaking out against a religion. They do not want to be associated with the "Christian Extremists" or racists, hence stand by the sidelines.

 

[winbypin]

45 and his administration don't care about Freedom of Speech. If any message contradicts the message that they want, it is discounted and attempts at suppression are made. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers"


Freedom of speech is included in the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. It's not surprising the 45 attempts to limit the scope of speech and shape the message that is heard as he is clearly not a Constitutional scholar.

Censorship and speech suppression is very dangerous. It is what has occurred in dictatorships in the past. The citizens of this country will never allow it to happen and this is to the chagrin of 45.

I don't see President Trump stopping free speech. I see him calling out false stories about him or his administration. There is a difference.

 

[19AL63]

You know any countries without border control? They all defend their borders. Maybe there's something behind you're question that you're not stating?

Every road into Ca. form other states has guards stopping you now. Now they stop you and ask if you have any fruit. How hard would it be to change that to they would like to see your passport and then ask do you have any fruit?

 

[lotr10]

No; there has always been a divide going back to the founding of the country. There have been racial, religious, and economic divides in the past which were far worse
The press,as an example; were far more partisan in the past. The idea of an impartial press is a recent development and in practice, largely a fiction.

I agree that divisions at the birth of America were much deeper and it resulted in a devastating civil war that saw the country come very close to breaking into two separate and antagonistic nations. And the hangover from the Civil War lasted a couple of generations leading to a strong divide.

But WW1 and even more so WW2 along with the New Deal in between acted to unite this nation as never before. Throw in a brutally effective assimilation machine that allowed us to absorb millions of immigrants and turn them into Americans within 2 generations and you enter the 1950's very unified with relative homogeneity. The only exception being Black America and the civil rights efforts of the 1960's set in place the judicial & legislative foundation for true equality to blossom within 1 or 2 generations.

And even the divide created by the Vietnam War was more about the need to shed American blood in Vietnam to stop communism, not the need to stop coimmunism's spread which was supported strongly by BOTH sides of the ideological divide.

But today is different:

* The media is biased which has forced half the country to seek out alternative news. The net result is that Americans get their information & facts from two very different places.

* Because of lax and foolish immigration policies America has become highly diverse racially, ethnically and by religion. Throw in the power of growing secularism and this country's population has never been as diverse as it is today. And diversity can act against unity. Recent studies have shown that the more "diverse" a community is the less trusting & charitable it is. Making matters worse is we no longer emphasize assimilation!

 

[Rohbino]

I don't see President Trump stopping free speech. I see him calling out false stories about him or his administration. There is a difference.

I agree that he isn't stopping free speech. What I wrote was "if any message contradicts the message that they want, it is discounted and attempts at suppression are made." There is a difference.

He doesn't call out false stories. He calls out stories that he thinks are false and that he doesn't like. There is a difference.

* Because of lax and foolish immigration policies America has become highly diverse racially, ethnically and by religion. Throw in the power of growing secularism and this country's population has never been as diverse as it is today. And diversity can act against unity. Recent studies have shown that the more "diverse" a community is the less trusting & charitable it is. Making matters worse is we no longer emphasize assimilation!

I often don't agree with your viewpoints but your arguments are generally cogent and expressed respectably. However, what you've written here is expressed as if racial, ethnic and religious diversity is a bad thing. I believe that our country is stronger today due diversity not in spite of it. I would also like to read some of the studies that you're alluding to.

I won't argue that the lack of assimilation is making matters worse. I believe, though, that the lack of assimilation is the result of others not willing to accept diversity.

 

[Termite2]

.............
But WW1 and even more so WW2 along with the New Deal in between acted to unite this nation as never before..

* The media is biased which has forced half the country to seek out alternative news. The net result is that Americans get their information & facts from two very different places.

* Because of lax and foolish immigration policies America has become highly diverse racially, ethnically and by religion. Throw in the power of growing secularism and this country's population has never been as diverse as it is today. And diversity can act against unity. Recent studies have shown that the more "diverse" a community is the less trusting & charitable it is. Making matters worse is we no longer emphasize assimilation!

During the war years we were united; the intervening years, not so much. There were incidents like when the bonus marchers that were suppressed by Gen McArthur who used the 12th US Inf and the US 3rd Cav, supported by tanks under George Patton to crush them, they normally would have used the Marines in the Washington garrison, but they were sympathetic to the protesters and couldn't be trusted to to not join them. There were also the Farm protests where farmers blocked roads going into cities in an effort to raise prices. You also had rival farm groups, communists vs anti-commies fighting in Nebraska and other states.
FDR only introduced SS after massive protests[most were violent] by Socialists and Communists and the introduction of the Lundeen Bill* in congress which was a bigger social program. When the economy crashed again when it hit a new low in 1938 there was not the protests that happened before because the the Communists[who were the driving force behind the protests] were ordered by Moscow to refrain because Moscow wanted help from the Western democracies against the Nazis.




*Unemployment compensation equal to the average pay of all workers, passed by committee in the House, Roosevelts SSA bill was passed instead.

 

[MoeDude]

^^^
I don't think they care.

You are right. I don't think the Left cares if the US remains the US. They want the US to be more like Europe with a little bit more Socialism. For some reason they truly believe that government control of everything is the answer. Heck the US has already moved toward a more Socialistic state than our forefathers wanted. Individual freedoms are being challenged and taken away with each passing year.

The Left ignores what Obama did because he's a smooth talker and he made it look like he was doing their bidding. In reality Obama had his own agenda and making America stronger was definitely not on his list.

lotr your scenario is not all that far fetched I just don't think it will happen in 25 years unless we get another Obama type President. If we get someone like that in as POTUS then your timeline may become the reality.