When red states secede, who gets the federal goodies? Democrats will insist on keeping it all. Seceded states will insist that they contributed to making half of the goodies, so they should get half.

In particular, seceded states will insist on keeping the federal military bases that are in the state. Democrats will refuse. War is inevitable. We are re-enacting the Fort Sumpter powderkeg that triggered the first Civil War.

Democrats will use the threat of keeping all the federal goodies as a bludgeon to stop states from seceding. This is the essence of domestic abuse. Democrats are domestic abusers.

Had Republican states known that they would be subjected to domestic abuse upon joining The Union, they never would have joined.

@jaymaron Will they keep the federal debt?

@jaymaron

I know that I am in the minority on this thought, but I believe there will be no secession. Unlike the Civil War, the world will not sit idly by and let the U.S tear itself apart. The destabilization to the petrodollar alone would be disastrous.

Does that mean some state won't try? Put it up for referendum? Of course not. But it won't be "allowed" to happen by the people who truly run things.

@Alysandir
Rich topic.

In Civil War 1, immediately after Lincoln's election, southern states seceded and commenced seizing federal bases in Confederate territory. Lincoln didn't defend the forts and let the Confederacy have them.

Until Sumpter. Lincoln refused to evacuate Sumpter and the Conferacy attacked it. Immediately after, Lincoln called for raising 75000 troops and got enthusiastic response. War was on.

Even if states don't secede, they have nuissance value. They can declare sanctuary zones and undermine the fed. The fed will try to crush something and overdo it, triggering outrage among red states, and war will be on.

@Alysandir
Lots of people on the left want war. I doubt that the oligarchs can stop the mobs.

Cosmically, there will exist factions that favor cold war over hot war, and factions that favor hot war over cold war. But once the powerkeg goes off, you can't get the powder back in the keg.

The world is headed for grief.

American Civil War 2 could trigger a World Civil War. Every nation has left and right factions that are at odds with each other. Every nation is a powderkeg. The whole magazine could detonate.

@jaymaron

Lots of people on the left want war.

I would say that a lot of people on the ideological Left want to provoke the Right into doing something that justifies - to the Left - the abrogation of civil liberties on a national scale. It's not a coincidence that the media continues to try incredibly hard to push the narrative of "armed insurrectionists" at the Capitol - in spite of the fact that not a single firearm was confiscated by police or that the only shots fired were from a Capitol police officer - while there is new gun control legislation being considered.

Which is to say, they don't want war; they want the Right to do something stupid as a pretext for authoritarian control. As I've said elsewhere, I suspect their next target is conservatism itself, painting it as a "racist ideology of hate;" the only reason they haven't yet is because there is a lot of support for religion in black and Latin communities on the Left, so they have to wait for conservatives to put their foot in it. An armed protest would certainly be that.

American Civil War 2 could trigger a World Civil War.

Indeed, which is all the more reason why it would not be allowed to happen.

Imagine a scenario where Texas votes to secede. Before the vote is even tallied, National Guardsmen from Texas will be rotated out to duty stations abroad and Guardsmen from other states - likely New York or California - will be rotated in. They are there to supplement the police and to provide a show of force, but to not actually initiate any fighting, because that would create bad optics.

The Biden/Harris administration will denounce the results and accuse the separatists as being anti-American; the media and big tech will bend over backward to ensure that this is only narrative people get to see. There will be tearful pleading from carefully cultivated family members living outside of Texas pleading with their loved ones to not commit treason and surrender to the "lawful authorities." Internet, phone, and bank accounts will be "temporarily" suspended for anyone living in or doing business in Texas. Martial law will be instituted in Texas as a national state of emergency is declared.

If significant fighting does break out, it will be characterized as pro-U.S military forces defending themselves against terrorist attack, irrespective of who starts the actual shooting. The Biden/Harris administration may even go so far as to invite "UN observers" to Texas to ensure that separatists are treated humanely, as they begin to round people into camps, even if only suspected of treason. This may further lead to UN troops being stationed in Texas as a "peacekeeping force," just in case.

In any event, Texas will be made an example of, to head off any ideas others around the nation have about leaving the Union.

Respectfully, the oligarchs CAN and WILL control this, because they've planned for a very long time for this scenario.

@jaymaron

I would also submit some food for thought: if there is going to be a war, I would imagine it will be closer to what our nation experienced during the Revolutionary War than the Civil War, based on the level of training and armament available to each "side." (1)

The Revolutionary War itself was largely a lost cause until France and Spain aided us; what country would stand with secessionists?

(1) Except that the gap in training and arms is far, far wider than anything the Revolutionaries ever could've imagined.

@Alysandir
Yes, this feels more like the Rev War than the Civil War.

In the Rev War the rebels had the moral high ground, and in the Civil War the rebels had the moral low ground.

The show "Liberty's Kids: American Revolution" (on youtube) portrays the Rev War. The Rev War began when British soldiers fired on Americans, with the Shot Heard Round the World".

Good question, about which nations will stand with Red America. There exist many conservative nations, and many nations who recognize that Red America is on their side against the CCP.

The MVP of the Rev War was Franklin, who among other things, coaxed France to America's side.
What a boss. While Washington was freezing his ass off crossing rivers in winter, Franklin was partying at the Palace of Versailles.

Franklin was a celebrity in Europe because of his writings and his personality. Trump has the potential to be the ambassador we need to coax nations to the side of Red America.

@jaymaron

In the Rev War the rebels had the moral high ground, and in the Civil War the rebels had the moral low ground.

Just to play Devil's Advocate, I'm not sure the British saw things that way. To them, this was a colony they had sunk quite a bit of money into and whose principle demand - "no taxation without representation - both ignored how much the Crown spent (and continued to spend) supporting the colonies and wasn't entirely correct (at least in the eyes of Parliament).

Similarly, I would question whether the Confederacy thought what they were doing was immoral, unless one believes revisionist history that claims the Civil War was absolutely about slavery.

The truth is, neither war was about morality but power and control. History romanticizes the moral aspects because the victor writes history. Even today, there are people who will vehemently argue that the rights of the individual do not matter so much as the needs of society (basically, the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one," line from Star Trek) and that seceding based on individual civil liberties - versus acquiescing to socialism - is an immoral prospect.

Good question, about which nations will stand with Red America. There exist many conservative nations

I hope you know a few more than I do, because all I can think of off the bat are countries like Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic - basically, former Soviet bloc nations - and maybe the Philippines (although does anyone really WANT Duterte's help?).

Canada would not intercede on the behalf of secessionists. No one in the EU would. England? They'd risk courting their own civil war if they helped.

Russia? China? Oh, they'd like nothing more that to see America split, so they might...but for all the wrong reasons, and we'd likely end up regretting it later.

Israel can't afford to send help. Without the U.S presence in the Middle East, they'll have enough problems.

Saudi Arabia? Fat chance. They need stability in the petrodollar; the sooner a schism is settled, the better for them.

India? They have Pakistan on one side and China on the other. They aren't fighting in a war halfway around the globe.

@Alysandir

Rich topic. So much to analyze.

Beyond Republican and Democrat. Consider escalation vs. de-escalation.

Democrats escalate. They're crybullies. If a yellow card foul is committed against them they use it to justify a red card retaliatory foul. In their minds they have the moral high ground. From the point of view of those they bully, Democrats are regarded as crybulliers and occupiers of the moral low ground. The difference is irreconcilable.

Leftists like mobs. Mobs are intrinsically escalatory. A mob cannot deescalate.

The Capitol Tea Party was a fine example of de-escalation. Upon seizing the Capitol, did the partiers escalate? No. They partied. They took photos for memes. It was a meme mother load. Everyone was jubilant. No act of violence
was committed by Republicans.

The Capitol Tea Partiers didn't bring guns, such is their commitment to de-escalation.

The officer that shot the partiers escalated. The victim was unarmed and not doing anything violent. The officer did not warn the victim before shooting. Egregious escalation. He escalated all the way to life and death in an instant. He shot her in the neck, guaranteeing death. No verbal warning. No warning shot. No warning wound. Shoot to kill.

Democrats refused to disclose the identity of the officer that shot the victim, therefore creating an environment where Republicans can be shot with impunity. Egregious escalation.

Democrats label the Capitol Tea Party as a violent act of erection. Republicans label it as proof that they are peaceful. Democrats used the party to justify egregious escalatory attacks on Republicans, and they see themselves as upon the moral high ground. Republicans see this as an unjustified denial of civil liberties and as Democrats upon the moral low ground. The difference is irreconcilable.

After the party, Democrats ganged up and destroyed the career of the musician Ariel Pink, on the premise that Pink was part of the party. Pink wasn't, and it was proved. After the proof, did Democrats apologize and restore his career? No. It's still destroyed. Republicans view this as a lack of rigor by Democrats. They view Democrats as witch hunters, with no care as to if the hunted is innocent or guilty. They want to hunt. Republicans view Democrats as morally negligent.

Democrats claimed that the partiers were violent, without proof, which is morally negligent. Upon proof that the partiers did not commit violence, Democrats ignored it and pressed the claim of violence, which is morally negligent. Democrats fancy themselves upon the moral high ground and Republicans see Democrats as morally negligent. The difference is irreconcilable.

There is a vast number of examples of Democrat witch hunts upon people who were proved innocent, yet the witch hunt continued. This sticks in the minds of Republicans. Democrats see witch hunts as a virtuous crushing of Republican domestic terrorist Nazis. Republicans see witch hunts as morally negligent. The difference is irreconcilable.

Democrats whiffed on the issue of the police. There are good cops and bad cops. Bad cops escalate. It's a serious problem. This is the issue Democrats should focus on. The issue is well defined and easily solved.

The best way to deescalate is to fission. Democrats think Republicans want erection. No. Republicans want to pull out. Democrats view secession as evil. Republicans view it as good. Democrats will use secession as justification to escalate and attack. The difference is irreconcilable.

@Alysandir

Good point, about how British felt. The show Liberty's Kids well covers how Americans felt and lightly covers how British felt. They don't mention many of the points Alysandir raised. It seems worth being
sensitive and delving into how the British felt.

Previous to the Revolutionary War, Americans and British fought together against French and Indians. Most likely the British saw themselves as the MVP of the war.

Yes, it's about power. A common power issue is markets. Many wars are fought over control of markets. Controlling markets is even more profitable than taxing. Just ask today's oligarchs. The most intolerable of the Intolerable Acts was the requirement that Americans could only trade with British.

After the Revolutionary War, many states were in debt. They joined The Union on condition that The Union forgive their debt.

Liberty's Kids has a scene with the Green Mountain Men of Vermont, rugged courageous patriots. Upon seeing their attitude it's clear that they would Never Give Up on independence.

Liberty's Kids portrays the spirit of rural American pioneers. The British in Britain can't understand that.

Liberty's Kids portrays King George as arrogant and as a dumbass. His actions guaranteed the Declaration of Independence of America. Maybe he thought he could crush the rebellion. But it does no good because even if Britain wins, it has on its hands an ungovernable hornet's nest. The Green Mountain Men would vanish into the wilderness and continue the rebellion.

Democrats today are acting like King George. They are unaware that they are re-enacting the Revolutionary War. They have the sensitivity of an anvil.