I could see some sort of massive shift if the dollar were to collapse. Despite people trying to argue to the contrary, when it comes down to creating massive unrest nothing beats a bout of hyperinflation. Maybe someone here can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems most countries that collapse experience hyperinflation instead of deflation. I can guarantee that Wisconsin would side with the Feds, since they seem to go along with what ever dumb idea the Federal government dreams up. It is easy to pacify people when there is monetary deflation, give them some stimulus checks, extend unemployment benefits, and pay their mortgages.

From a pure survival standpoint I would say one would be best hiding out somewhere remote and let things sort themselves out. I sure wouldn't be fighting for Wisconsin, probably leave the state if civil war broke out.

 

My gut tells me the answers to your questions are
1) We can't.
2) We can't.
3) We cant.

Perhaps it might be of help to discuss what others did before and during the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression in order to protect themselves. I'm no scholar of that period but I can tell you that one of my sets of ggg grandparents moved from Kentucky to the Illinois/Missouri border during that time. I have no way of knowing for sure whether it was to get away from the problems or not but it was of no use to them because they both died in 1862 in a freak accident, and all their children were farmed out to neighbors.

These days I tend to think that any sort of unrest of this sort would be centered in high population density areas, but I could be wrong.

 

I live in Indiana. The Indiana bill you mention does not mean the state will have its own currency. It means that the state must have on its books only money that is directly backed by liquid assets. I really like Mitch Daniels and he is a smart guy. We have a surplus right now and I think he is working toward making sure that the state doesn't spend money it doesn't really have, unlike other states.

So... keep that in mind as you contemplate the questions. *That* particular bullet point is just good economics, not any kind of rebellion against the fed. gov't. I would guess that the others have been similarly misunderstood if they are picked apart. JMO.

 

Interesting comments Ernie,,
I happen to live 3 miles from the Missouri line,, believe me,,, that war never ended..
The reprocussions are still noticeable,, and sometimes come into play on any given day..
Fortunately,,, the war is now played on the gridiron.
I can't remember now who the state senater is for the state of Missouri,,, but,, she worships the jam between Obamas toes...
WE may have a democrat gov. here in Kansas,,, but ,, at least our 2 senators voted against the first bail-out,, and they are pretty hard nosed against any federal interference when it comes to states rights..
Gary H.

 

Ah, thanks for the update, Booklover. I need to get more of my info from actual government websites and less from blogs.

Indiana Bill SB 453 will use Federal currency but require the state to hold in assets of gold and silver every single dollar.

http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2009&sessi on=1&request=getBill&docno=453

I stll think this is just about as dangerous though. They are going to allow Indiana citizens to pay, in Indiana, with gold or silver Indiana coins instead of just federal paper or credit card. Given the choice, would YOU accept federal paper instead of hard currency like gold or silver? If I were an Indiana farmer, I'd want gold or silver coins in exchange for my produce.

Maybe it's even more dangerous. They aren't creating a new currency. They're actually setting up a competing currency. Sounds like a rebellion to me.

Here's a link page:

http://www.taxtruth4u.com/eight states.html

I don't know that it's too easy to misunderstand what New Hampshire is saying. Check this out:

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government.

THAT is the shot heard round the world, folks.

 

Interesting topic. Ernie - are the efforts in NH driven by any of the folks from the "free state project"?

My only comment is that at least now, unlike Civil War era, information moves so quickly which is of great benefit.

 

Ernie that's pretty good food for thought.

I would be very curious how opinions on this fall along party lines...not to start a rabid discussion but just out of curiosity. I'm an independent and I'm pretty sure I know how we'd go as a rule. I would love to see a poll along the lines of this hypothetical situation:

Things have gotten so out of control, there is no hope as the union stands now and....

I'm a democrat/republican/independent and I'm for secession
I'm a democrat/republican/independent and I'm against secession

I'm sure it would get too inflammatory. I'm predicting though that party lines would take a back seat and we'd be divided along other lines.

 

1. Prepare much the way I am preparing for the depression. Prep!

However, this requires a new wrinkle that I was contemplating just this week: I need to connect with secessionists to find out the details. You stated on another thread that some times you like to pull your horns in - this would be a time when the horns must go out. Intel is King.

2. I am fortunate and blessed in where I settled (although some great consideration was given). I am part of what I envision will be the Free Mountain States. Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, possibly Colorado, and maybe even Alberta other parts of Canada. I think that the eastern establishment will let us go since they will have quite a handful pacifying the east.

3. Utah and other mountain states already have secession-type of language in law so all need be done is pull the trigger. Not saying it will be easy but the framework is laid. I would say in excess of 70% of the people I talk to here despise the Imperial Federal Government.

And we are armed and of a like mind out this way. Salt Lake City is infected and one county over by Colorado but the rest of the state is ready.

 

New Hampshire has introduced legislation (which is moving along nicely) that is putting an end to some of the federal government's abuses. Indiana introduced the "Indiana Honest Money Bill" (SB 453) which will issue its own currency based on the gold standard. Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Hawaii, Oklahoma, and Washington have all passed various pieces of legislation asserting the 10th amendment and the right of their state to nullify anything they deem as unconstitutional and put in place by the federal government.

Dissent amongst the states isn't a huge surprise to me.I haven't seen much about it and suspect that it will continue to be a quietly waged war for the time being. People are generally upset, on the verge of panic and looking for an explantion. Whether right or wrong the big bad feds are the easiest scapegoat. In a financial sense any state that is tied to a union that supports a soon to be bankrupt state (CA) is doomed to get dragged down too.


New Hampshire (the "live free or die" people) went so far as to state in their legislation that any future unconstitutional acts by the federal government will be considered a "breach of the peace" that will nullify the constitution and render their contract with the federal government void. That's the boldest statement yet.

That is comical to me because politics is full of empty bold statements and saber rattling. Good for New Hampshire but I'm not expecting to see any fireworks. The fed .gov simply CANNOT afford to allow the states to secede. That's like the judicial and penal system paying the bills if drugs were legalized. No cow, no cream to scim off the top

What these states are essentially saying is "knock it off or we're leaving the union". Some of them haven't gotten that far yet, but they are neutering the federal government as fast as possible. They are stating that they don't care about any federal branch and they don't care about the supreme court.

Be that as it may it is up to the supreme court to decide what the states rights may be based on the constitution and probably 10,000 other small agreements and precedents that followed.

So if this continues, the federal government is either going to have to curtail its activities, or act to stop them (most likely with military force). Military action against one state may tip the hands of the other states and force them to arm up and defend themselves, or announce a formal secession. That's exactly what happened in the first Civil War. Half the states weren't going to secede from the union at all until Lincoln's immigrant-swelled army fired on American citizens.

Are you forgetting the general neutering of the American public since then? Any violent dissent would be deemed an act of domestic terrorism and dealt with swiftly and harshly. If .gov has proven anything it is that certain boundaries will never be allowed to be crossed without serious consequences. Besides, it doesn't have to come to that. It's much easier to cut off supply lines, food sources, power and water. Starving out those who are deeply embedded is much easier and cleaner. A poorly fed militia is useless.

So ... many of us have moved all around the nation, following the jobs like migrant workers. I consider that I am "behind enemy lines" as I know exactly which way the state of Illinois would go. The states which are currently making secessionist rhetoric are geographically separated. They'll be surrounded by essentially enemy territory, unless you consider that you may have the fragmentation of states. For example, Illinois could splinter with the urban north going for the federal government and the more rural southern half going for the secessionists.

If this comes to military action, many of us may find our gardens and pastures become a battlefield. My own personal views aside as to whether or not I'd fight in such a conflict, I don't want my family to experience something similar to the Missouri-Kansas conflicts of the 1850's, or to have to worry about some group like Quantrill's Raiders while I'm off somewhere else.

This situation seems like it becoming somewhat more likely. That poses a risk to my future which must be answered. The survival questions:

1. How do we prepare for this sort of situation?
2. How can we keep our families effectively safe while this is occurring?
3. How can we predict which way our own state might go, and the relative defensive strength of our state and local community?

1. Pick a side, quietly or vocally. Hope it's the winning side.
2. You can't, this is one of the worst domestic SHTF scenarios possible IMHO. Decide what you value more highly your family or your principles. Sometimes you cannot have both.
3. Chaos and it's fallout could never be predicted. A good guess is to see who has more/bigger guns and who has a stronger/better fed populace.


Stay the course Ernie, it's not time yet.

 

Good thoughts Ernie. You said you get some of your points from blogs. I don't want to get divisive so could you PM me with some of the sites you frequent? I follow most of your posts and like your line of reasoning.

Thanks,
Dan

 

No army is so powerful as an idea whose time has come. -- Victor Hugo

The US gov't is bankrupt, and that's becoming more and more obvious to everyone around the world, not just here at home. And I recently saw another quote: "The problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money."

So the question is, is enough of the US populace fed up enough yet? While we may be heading in that direction, I don't know that we're there yet. After the stock market crashed last oct, a bunch more people are seeing the light.

There's no question in my mind that the current system will change, the only question is when, and what will replace it. I have no illusions that we're guaranteed to get a better system. History would suggest we're more likely to get a worse system for a while, perhaps a long while.

If it comes down to a shooting match, then it will probably fail. Iceland's gov't collapsed not because of bullets, but because of a bunch of people angry in the streets banging pots and pans. the former soviet union collapsed not because of the bullets, but because a flood of people left east germany thru austria to west germany, and because the entire middle level of bureaucrats had lost any illusions that the system worked, or that it had any legitamacy in helping "the people."

And you might want to read a few history books. The American Revolution was pretty rare as revolutions go, in that the result was stable very quickly. The French Revolution turned into the Reign of Terror. Led to the rise and fall of Naponlean. Then the restoration of the monarchy. And the Russian Revolution was similar, ie, it ate the people that started it in a reign of terror, and even more blood-thirsty people rose to power.

And don't forget that the US has military bases in 150 countries around the world, that one way or another "keep the peace", usually in a way that's beneficial to the US and not so much to the local populace. So if the US goes into rebellion, expect pretty strong pressure on the Saudi gov't from the locals who apparently aren't real happy with what they view as a US puppet gov't. And expect foriegn powers to be manipulating the system too, the same way we supplied those rebelling against the soviet occupation of afganistan. So don't be surprised if various state gov'ts waffle in response to hidden bribes from foriegn powers, or various damaging intelligence is passed from foriegn powers to the US gov't, based on the activities of the foreign power itself. Foreign powers would be interested in both sides being weak enough so neither could win and the battle is prolonged, and would give a little help to both sides now and then to assure that.

Lastly, I'd guess China & Russia have learned from watching the US and the IMF how to make sure that the bills run up by prior gov'ts are still paid by the succeeding gov'ts. So don't expect that the mountains of debt we're running now, and would run up even faster during an insurrection, would be forgiven by foriegn powers.

--sgl

 

There can be a great deal of retoric but IMHO we are all so interconnected that until the government falls apart............which I believe very well could happen......it means nothing. Remember, soldiers don't fight if they aren't paid, unless it is to defend their own family and home. Having sons in the military I am quite certain that the guns will not be aimed at the citizenry.

Here in Michigan we are a state divided; much like our country. Unless you can manage to move your family and entire homesteading lifestyle to some very remote and undesirable location, I see no safe haven.

 

I find this discussion interesting and will try to leave my personal biases out of it. Here is one thought I had:

How many of the states mentioned in the OP are willing to continue sending THEIR money to the federal government in the form of taxes and getting none of it back in the form of grants, etc. to repair roads, and supplement other governmental services?

I am not an expert, but didn't the federal government threaten to deprive "federal" money to any states that did not implement 55 as the maximum speed limit? I think they did the same thing with the minimum drinking age. They would do the same thing to any states that didn't toe the line.

Does anyone have any idea what percentage of the money local, county, and state governments spend are actually returning "federal" dollars? I would think that by demand of its citizens, the states would have to raise their state taxes to maintain the level of services the citizens expect after the federal dollars left and never returned. I doubt less populated states would not be able to maintain essential services through taxing their own people. Being part of the union means that much of the money is spread out. People in the east are paying for the roads in the west.

 

People in the east are paying for the roads in the west.

Not so much these days. A lot of the western states would make a profit keeping their tax dollars instate.

Sam

 

Not so much these days. A lot of the western states would make a profit keeping their tax dollars instate.

Sam

Maybe western states like California, Washington and Oregon, but what about the so-called Free Mountain States (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and possibly Colorado)? What about states like North and South Dakota? Could these states make a profit keeping their federal tax dollars in state? I doubt it.

 

Well, if you consider we would get 70% of our state back from the feds I think we might do OK.

BLM, USFS, Parks, Monuments, etc. Certainly the parks and monumnets would be preserved but vast tracts of land would be freed up for "many uses."

And we could mine coal, oil, gas and timber that is locked up by federal law now.

And water.

 

Not sure,,,,, but if a state secceded,,, that state wouldn't have fed. income tax deducted..,,, but the difference being given for state taxes..
I don't know about interstate highways,,,, the feds would still have to keep them in shape..

 

There can be a great deal of retoric but IMHO we are all so interconnected that until the government falls apart............which I believe very well could happen......it means nothing. Remember, soldiers don't fight if they aren't paid, unless it is to defend their own family and home. Having sons in the military I am quite certain that the guns will not be aimed at the citizenry.

Here in Michigan we are a state divided; much like our country. Unless you can manage to move your family and entire homesteading lifestyle to some very remote and undesirable location, I see no safe haven.

This I do not believe, Diane. Not that you don't have sons in the military, but that military personnel will not turn their guns on the citizenry.

7% of the American military today consists of foreign-born immigrants holding green cards. They are serving as a path to citizenship. Many were recruited in Mexico or Columbia.

Another large portion of the army was recruited from inner city areas. If they are sent to a rural area, do you think they'll withhold their fire? Soldiers are not known for being a free-thinking, libertarian group to begin with. If the government can come up with a pretty solid causus belli against the secessionists, I suspect they won't have any trouble fielding brigades against American citizens.

During the first civil war, the South did not expect Lincoln to actually find soldiers who would shoot at fellow Americans. Many of those who made up the Confederate army had left the service of the federal army. Many found themselves staring down the barrel at a former colleague from the Mexican-American war.

Certainly many American soldiers would refuse to fight. Many might even take their equipment and join the secessionists. I'm thinking in particular of West Virginians who have fought in disproportionately greater numbers in every war since the Revolutionary one.

I've been thinking about this a lot as I shovel out the barn today. There's really no winning that one. Lincoln ordered the burning of Atlanta. Missouri was ravaged by both the Jayhawkers and Quantrill's Raiders. There wasn't any safe place for anyone during that time, if you lived in an actual state and not some remote territory. And many southerners still believe that it was Reconstruction that killed the south, not the war.

New Zealand is looking better and better by the day.

 

Interesting comments Ernie,,
I can't remember now who the state senater is for the state of Missouri,,, but,, she worships the jam between Obamas toes...
WE may have a democrat gov. here in Kansas,,, but ,, at least our 2 senators voted against the first bail-out,, and they are pretty hard nosed against any federal interference when it comes to states rights..
Gary H.

That would be the lovely Claire McCaskill that St. Louis saddeled us with. :grit:


Sabrina

 

There was a study done about 5 years ago where active duty Marines were questioned about firing on American civilians if ordered to do so. Over 70% would. Chilling.

There are not enough soldiers or police to pacify the entire nation. The major metro areas would be torn apart by rioting and uncivil war. I think the Imperial Federal Government would have its hands full just keeping thos issues contained.

Think Afghanistan today.

Wolverines!

 

I expect you'd be fighting left and right this time rather than north and south. I figure your best course is to keep the rust cleaned off, keep a good water supply and have fire lanes and range cards.
Oh, and keep going to church on Sunday.

 

I don't know how this would work out but the division is getting greater between the workers and the give me crowd. This was evident to me in this election and now in the debates on the pork bill (stimulis pkg). We have a power struggle going on right now in this country. Depending on who wins which way this country will go.

 

If you bury the silver be sure you have a good map! And don't trust anybody named sherman or butler!

 

This I do not believe, Diane. Not that you don't have sons in the military, but that military personnel will not turn their guns on the citizenry.

7% of the American military today consists of foreign-born immigrants holding green cards. They are serving as a path to citizenship. Many were recruited in Mexico or Columbia.

Another large portion of the army was recruited from inner city areas. If they are sent to a rural area, do you think they'll withhold their fire? Soldiers are not known for being a free-thinking, libertarian group to begin with. If the government can come up with a pretty solid causus belli against the secessionists, I suspect they won't have any trouble fielding brigades against American citizens.

During the first civil war, the South did not expect Lincoln to actually find soldiers who would shoot at fellow Americans. Many of those who made up the Confederate army had left the service of the federal army. Many found themselves staring down the barrel at a former colleague from the Mexican-American war.

Certainly many American soldiers would refuse to fight. Many might even take their equipment and join the secessionists. I'm thinking in particular of West Virginians who have fought in disproportionately greater numbers in every war since the Revolutionary one.

I've been thinking about this a lot as I shovel out the barn today. There's really no winning that one. Lincoln ordered the burning of Atlanta. Missouri was ravaged by both the Jayhawkers and Quantrill's Raiders. There wasn't any safe place for anyone during that time, if you lived in an actual state and not some remote territory. And many southerners still believe that it was Reconstruction that killed the south, not the war.

New Zealand is looking better and better by the day.

When I read her post I was thinking the same thing. I think there would be a split in the military just like in the country. Just because someone is in the military, it doesn't mean they don't have strong beliefs. Remember, they took an oath to defend the United states against outsiders, as well as insiders. So if it came to the government having problems with it's citizens, I think each one will choose if they want to stand beside a government they may or may not agree with any more.

 

As a solider of the United States Army, I can tell you that the poll done on Marines is misleading, if not completely fabricated. A poll run in the Army in the early 90's showed a possible defection of 50 to 60% of the army soldiers, with their equipment in the event of a internal or civil war (IE: Helicopters, tanks, artillery, Ammo, Weapons, Grenades, etc...) I do not know a single soldier that would fire on innocent civilians... Anyone who thinks the Army would walk around blind and dumb is seriously delusional IMHO.

Oath to enter the Armed Services states " I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, Foreign and Domestic..." Note the words CONSTITUTION and DOMESTIC.

Get real, some soldiers, some units, but not the majority.