[7.62mmFMJ]

That is a tough question, Ernie. I am glad I do not live back east. I believe that the only hope in these situations is to band together as communities and develop plans for a common defense at defensible positions. The problem would be, in many cases, leaving your homestead open to looting, depredation, and razing.

 

[BTO]

I think we will need another Boston Tea Party. If the population were to withhold taxes I think we could get "their" attention. The way it's going they could just put me in jail and feed me three squares a day.:grump:

 

[countrymech]

http://chappyreport.blogspot.com/2009/01/professor-joseph-olson-of-hemline.html
"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans
was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.

Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere
between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's
definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's
population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years

 

[countrymech]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I feel this info belongs with this discussion. The only place this administration truly has control is within the mass population centers which for the most part are consuming areas and not producing areas. The vast majority of this nations resources are tied up in the RED zone. If several states banded together and presented a united front then the Fed's would probably back down. The task they would face in putting down a mass insurrection would be impossible to accomplish. They simply don't have the resources to pacify the entire nation, not to say they won't try. This would not be East v. West, it would be rural v. big cities. As far as California goes, I say we give it back to Mexico.

 

[texican]

I think the secession and partition lines won't fall strictly along state lines... face it, most of the socialists live in metropolitan areas. In the last several elections, from the maps I've seen, conservatives won the vast percentage of the 'acreage', and the liberals won the complete majority of urbanized/metropolitan areas. Take out the metro areas, and most blue states are red (my opinion).

So, I could see the civil war being more about cities vs. the countryside.

The perfect partition, imho, would put walls around all of the cities, have checkpoints, ala Berlin, and any one wanting to cross into the cultural zones would have to show a passport, be disarmed, (country folks going in), be searched, etc. Let the people inside the walls let the government take care of everything. Let the people outside enjoy freedom. The only problem I could see is what benefits could the metropolitans give the ruralites, to exchange food for.

Know who your friends are, who you can depend on, and share intel... and if it comes down to it, dig up the caches and start using them. Having read about India and Pakistans partition, I can say it wasn't pleasant....

I'd rather be living way up in some remote western valley, backed by ragged mountains, 20 miles or so on a dirt road. Anyone know of a couple hundred or thousand acres, let me know...

 

[Ernie]

However that's exactly how it worked out in the first civil war. The south had far more acreage and natural resources. The north had labor and factories and large urban centers. They also had access to a huge influx of immigrants. Had the Irish fleeing famine landed at Charleston instead of New York then the war for Southern independence might have played out differently.

As I've said before, we're in a cultural war. This cultural war is going to turn on the opinions of the public. Liberal versus conservative. Producer versus consumer. Employer versus employed. And ultimately free man versus slave.

 

[7.62mmFMJ]

I'd rather be living way up in some remote western valley, backed by ragged mountains, 20 miles or so on a dirt road. Anyone know of a couple hundred or thousand acres, let me know...

I got mine

 

[Jerngen]

A quote that has been stuck in my head as I read this thread....

“It is easier to fight for our principles than it is to live up to them.” — Adalai Stevenson

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. Continue to prep and educate seems to be about all one can do
2. Develop a "clan" system with like minded individuals? Make sure all family members know how to back each other up in all ways?
3. Hmmm...... Lower Michigan will easily go to the Feds. The Upper Peninsula will likely become Independant and/or Seccessionist. There is a very strong independent spirit up here of "Mind your own business and we'll mind ours".
Our iron ore and copper mines would be quite valued tho I imagine.
Would be interesting to see if northern WI and northern MN would fracture away from what their urban centers dictate.

 

[whodunit]

A couple points that have been made on which I want to comment:

The one about not paying our taxes to the government's attention.

How do you NOT pay taxes in this day and age? Most taxes are incorporated into a purchase, as in sales tax, fuel tax, etc. Try to take what you purchased without paying the associated taxes.

As far as federal income taxes, I guess you could "claim" more dependents than you actually have, then refuse to write a check for what you owe at the end. Of course, the feds would likely take or tie up everything you own, so you better have it in liquid resources that your family can use while you are in prison waiting to be vindicated.

Prison, that's another thing. Who wants to be the first go?

The only way this whole idea works is everyone doing it at the same time, so the feds are overwhelmed, but even then, they will just pick off the most vulnerable in the bunch and make examples of them.

The other post about the government not having enough people to control the entire population. I think this is absolutely true.

Any kind of government or law enforcement lives and dies on voluntary compliance of the people. If they all do not comply, there is almost nothing that can be done, except, like I said before, to go after the most vulnerable, some of which may be your family members, children, friends, etc.

In my part of Idaho there is much discussion about the feds shutting down roads in the 2 million acres of forest in our area. If you are found on a closed road, you can be arrested but most likely ticketed. The only problem is who is going to find you breaking the law? The feds have maybe 2-3 law enforcement officers in this area. There may be some county deputies running around in the same areas, but they won't (can't) enforce federal law and many would likely just warn you about it, if anything.

 

[Allen W]

However that's exactly how it worked out in the first civil war. The south had far more acreage and natural resources. The north had labor and factories and large urban centers. They also had access to a huge influx of immigrants. Had the Irish fleeing famine landed at Charleston instead of New York then the war for Southern independence might have played out differently.

As I've said before, we're in a cultural war. This cultural war is going to turn on the opinions of the public. Liberal versus conservative. Producer versus consumer. Employer versus employed. And ultimately free man versus slave.

I agree with your comparison to the civil war except you over looked the modern day fuel situation. Remember when the pipeline going to the Southeast from Houston was shut off because of the hurricane coming in this summer.

 

[Ernie]

Well that's an element I hadn't really figured in. In the first civil war it was horse power. Now you've got fuel lines.

Would it force the federal government into action if a secessionist state with a fuel line running through it shut it off? Or would the federal government act to seize depots and refineries immediately just to keep that from happening?

 

[diane]

Well that's an element I hadn't really figured in. In the first civil war it was horse power. Now you've got fuel lines.

Would it force the federal government into action if a secessionist state with a fuel line running through it shut it off? Or would the federal government act to seize depots and refineries immediately just to keep that from happening?

Do you really think our government would be any different that Russia?? I can not see the Feds tolerating a break-away state and IMO they would certainly seize depots and refineries immediately.

I don't see any way a civil war would work in today's world. The divide is too big and too diverse. In my neighborhood you have the big factory farmers with the huge equipment bought with government handout money. They would side with the Feds. Us little homesteaders don't have a chance. We will be lucky to be able to remain on our land and grow our gardens and pay our taxes. The land grab is on and I don't see anyway to stop it.

 

[firegirl969]

I don't know much about how the petroleum market works, but I see that as a hold for some states, GA not being one of them. If your state has oil reserves in it, can't that state cut off the distribution from its state if it wants to? Also, the states out west that produce the largest majority of grains, milk, etc, can't they cut off the "exports" of these products if they choose to? These cuts would definitely get the attention of the feds in a time of state succession.

 

[Txsteader]

Here's the deal ... you say you don't know a single soldier who would fire on innocent civilians. I'd have to agree with you.

The way the government is going to spin it, these people are going to be "rebels" or "terrorists". If, say for example, Iowa were to secede from the union and refuse to send grain shipments east, then the government will say it's a deliberate attempt to starve people in the cities. There will be photos of desperate mothers holding up crying babies.

So while the soldiers may say that they won't fire on innocent civilians, how about terrorists who just happen to be gun-toting white males from New Hampshire? They may not fire on innocent civilians, but will they obey an order from their commander in chief to cross the border and occupy Salt Lake City if Utah withdraws from the Union? Are they going to return fire if fired upon? How about after secessionist forces attack and destroy a convoy of federal soldiers in the mountains of Kentucky? Think there might be some payback? Who is innocent then?

It's not going to play out as cut and dry as y'all think.

And if y'all still don't think American soldiers will fire on American citizens... remember Kent State. Remember the first Civil War. Remember what General MacArthur did to the Bonus Army in 1932.

It's my understanding that the military isn't too impressed with the president. As I recall, something like 95% of the military voted for McCain. And now, there's the Gitmo prisoner-release/reconstituting issue. So, the sense I get is that there's no love loss between the military and their Comm. in Chief....which could present a problem for him.

As for local law enforcement, heck they can't control things as it is. They'd be overwhelmed from the get-go.

To my non-authoritative eyes, the way it looked on an election map, is that the entire middle 2/3 of the country might possibly secede, leaving the east and west coasts stranded and cut off from one another. TA-DA! Problem solved.

 

[Wildwood]

I remember learning in grade school that Arkansas was the only state that could be totally self sufficient if closed of from the other 49. We would have the resources to produce about everything we'd need...if we could only remember how. Army brat here so that was in another state but it sure made me proud to be an Arkie. I had the prepper mentality even way back then.

 

[deuteronomy67]

I remember learning in grade school that Arkansas was the only state that could be totally self sufficient if closed of from the other 49. We would have the resources to produce about everything we'd need...if we could only remember how. Army brat here so that was in another state but it sure made me proud to be an Arkie. I had the prepper mentality even way back then.

I believe Texas is like that also, maybe other states as well. No incoming fuel, water, power lines here, only OUT going. My dad has worked in the power industry for years, so I know TX at least supplies it's own power.

 

[Txsteader]

I believe Texas is like that also, maybe other states as well. No incoming fuel, water, power lines here, only OUT going. My dad has worked in the power industry for years, so I know TX at least supplies it's own power.

Isn't it ironic that our major power supplier is named 'Reliant Energy'? LOL.

I've no doubt TX could be self sufficient. We've got just about every natural resource we'd need. God, I love this state!!!

 

[Ernie]

I find myself under cloudy Dallas skies today, and can't help agreeing with you, Txsteader. I was born here, and I miss it a lot. God bless Texas!

 

[ovsfarm]

Ernie and others considering New Zealand, you may have made that comment tongue in cheek, but I have heard it frequently from others. So first of all, be ready for loooong lines at the passport and immigration offices. Might be a good idea to get that passport in hand now rather than waiting.

Secondly, I too have considered whether it would be a good idea to relocate. But I keep coming back to this. Would I feel safe in a foreign country where I didn't know the local customs, lay of the land, have any close friends or family? There's a lot to be said for being a backwoods local who knows every cave and creek around here.

Also, I have pondered what would the reaction of the locals be in my new locality? I fear that if the US government fell, that would set off a domino effect that would be bad for a great many other countries. After all, we owe all that national debt to someone--how are they going to feel if we defaulted? So how are the home folks going to feel about all us refugees? Would they perceive us as birds who had fouled our nest and disrupted theirs now having the audacity to come to their country and expect to partake in their rights and services? Not exactly the way to win friends and influence people.

My ancestors immigrated from England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Germany at various points during the last 300 years. But from what few shreds of family history that remain, none of them had it easy for a very long time here in their new homeland.

I realize that most of us would only consider leaving if things got really bad here, but I am wondering whether it might even be worse for us elsewhere.

 

[Explorer]

I've no doubt TX could be self sufficient. We've got just about every natural resource we'd need. God, I love this state!!!

How are you fixed for iron ore to make steel? Other metals?