Possible American Civil War scenarios

Gideon wrote:

BTW there are no off limits topics here. The only rules are no threatening other members, and no planning actual American civil wars. However talk about it all you like.

Here's how it might go.

Asian-Americans, increasingly agitated over discrimination against them in favor of blacks in schools, university, and the workplace, stage a sit-in at Stanford University. Blacks attack the oriental students, fomenting a race war on campus. Black agitators are bused in to inflame the situation. Meanwhile, angry confrontations break out in Sacramento as legislators try to address the problem of racial entitlements.

Stanford's problems spread to Oakland, then to San Francisco. Rioting mobs take the opportunity to trash and loot downtowns in cities across the nation. Conservatives in Washington accuse larger city police of turning a blind eye to the devastation and demand the National Guard be deployed. Liberals accuse their opposition of racism and preserving an economic system that has, in their opinion, failed. Their demands for a socialist remaking of federalism reach a tipping point and civil war erupts when armed mobs clash in Memphis, Tennessee. Abetted by local police on one side against state troopers on the other, the factions fight in a series of skirmishes that metastasize nationally.

The US military, split along mostly racial lines, is unable to respond to conflicting orders coming down from a shattered leadership. The second American civil war is on.

gcruse wrote:

Gideon wrote:

BTW there are no off limits topics here. The only rules are no threatening other members, and no planning actual American civil wars. However talk about it all you like.

Here's how it might go.

Asian-Americans, increasingly agitated over discrimination against them in favor of blacks in schools, university, and the workplace, stage a sit-in at Stanford University. Blacks attack the oriental students, fomenting a race war on campus. Black agitators are bused in to inflame the situation. Meanwhile, angry confrontations break out in Sacramento as legislators try to address the problem of racial entitlements.

Stanford's problems spread to Oakland, then to San Francisco. Rioting mobs take the opportunity to trash and loot downtowns in cities across the nation. Conservatives in Washington accuse larger city police of turning a blind eye to the devastation and demand the National Guard be deployed. Liberals accuse their opposition of racism and preserving an economic system that has, in their opinion, failed. Their demands for a socialist remaking of federalism reach a tipping point and civil war erupts when armed mobs clash in Memphis, Tennessee. Abetted by local police on one side against state troopers on the other, the factions fight in a series of skirmishes that metastasize nationally.

The US military, split along mostly racial lines, is unable to respond to conflicting orders coming down from a shattered leadership. The second American civil war is on.

Add in what Bruce Sterling called "Structure Hitting" in his novel Heavy Weather and I think you've got a pretty good scenario.

That could happen.... There are 2 other scenarios..

1. The nation is in deep debt, and the Feds default. What could happen is the states get together, and form mini nations like a new CSA, the Allied States of America, Texas, or what ever.. These nations could fight each other to be the dominant nation in America.

2. Again the nation is in deep debt and again the Feds default.. However the US is weak and too weak to keep the states from leaving to form a new United States (with a name like Allied States, or Federated States, or a new Confederate States of America) and the US will not like it.

kevindavis338 wrote:

That could happen.... There are 2 other scenarios..


2. Again the nation is in deep debt and again the Feds default.. However the US is weak and too weak to keep the states from leaving to form a new United States (with a name like Allied States, or Federated States, or a new Confederate States of America) and the US will not like it.

Not bad. Let's tease that out a bit.


The federal US government is on the verge of default, a problem the rest of the world has been warning about for years. Financial markets are in meltdown as the Chinese government, holding trillions in soon-to-be worthless debt, unable to contain domestic inflation, faced with looming massive unemployment from collapsing trade, clamps down hard on escalating dissent. The exporting of cheap manufactured goods dries up.

Meanwhile, the hardest hit American states are the ones with residents least able to fend for themselves following a sharp cutback on social services from bankrupt state coffers. Generations of living off the fruits of civilization with no knowledge or appreciation of how that civilization is maintained breaks the social contract in northeastern, urbanized states and heavily populated corridors of California. After a round of looting and destruction, stores in these areas are emptied of goods.

To the north, collapse of trade is exacerbated by shutting off the oil pipelines to the south for fear the US can no longer pay for its imported energy. The financial loss of oil sales to the US and a China who holds mounds of worthless debt simultaneously rocks the Dominion. Transfer payments to Quebec and the eastern provinces are suspended, threatening famine in the already basket case economies of PEI, Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Eventually, the Canadian haves separate from the have-nots, ending the always troublesome fit between Quebecois and Anglo Canada. Split almost down the middle, North America resolves into a federation of western agricultural, energy producing, resource rich, and underpopulated states/provinces (California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, "fly-over" America and the South).

Eastern Canada breaks up to reform as the Dominion of Canada (Ontario) and French Canada (Quebec). The maritimes, unsustainable on their own and too expensive for Quebec to maintain, plead for annexation and are accepted by the newly formed Democratic American Republic, a nation-state forged by surrender of sovereignty to the new central government in NYC. The DAR itself was the last desperate attempt of northeastern states to escape crushing debt and avert social anarchy in the streets.

Although on the brink of civil war, cooler heads realized that the socio-political gestalt of the old northeastern US had become so Europeanized in its socialist thrust while the rest of the country retained an individualist core, that whoever won a new civil war would have a massively expensive task of occupation and subjugation. In the end, the north american contintent was rationalized along natural cultural lines for the most part, and the two countries began the chore of re-establishing the self-sufficiency frittered away by demands of overwhelming national governments.

Gcruse, that's a pretty interesting scenario. Why don't you write a dystopia novel based on that and get it published?

Sam Cree wrote:

Gcruse, that's a pretty interesting scenario. Why don't you write a dystopia novel based on that and get it published?

If I may suggest, compare to Harry Turtledove, who acquires realism for his alternate-history scenarios by generating realistic fictional characters, and occasionally lifting real-life characters from the past when appropriate.

This technique allows him to jump back and forth between scenes, and carry the action forward with rapid steps.

Thanks, guys. Thinking the unthinkable helps prepare us for the weirdest of all ... what actually happens!

Sam Cree wrote:

Gcruse, that's a pretty interesting scenario. Why don't you write a dystopia novel based on that and get it published?

Be more careful with that dystopia label - one never knows, it might start looking like utopia a bit after.

NicknamedBob wrote:

Sam Cree wrote:

Gcruse, that's a pretty interesting scenario. Why don't you write a dystopia novel based on that and get it published?

If I may suggest, compare to Harry Turtledove, who acquires realism for his alternate-history scenarios by generating realistic fictional characters, and occasionally lifting real-life characters from the past when appropriate.

This technique allows him to jump back and forth between scenes, and carry the action forward with rapid steps.

Harry's novels I think portrayed in what America would be like had the north lost to the rebels imho.. I pray to god that there is a never civil war in America again..

Another scenario is that like in Jericho.. A major incident makes the Feds weak (like have a bomb go off in every major city). A group of states joins the Allied States on the west coast, and the remaining US on the east coast.

I don't think the South below Virginia would join with the rest of the east coast and Florida. Western NC, SC Georgia and TN are not going to follow the Northern states and it has less to do with the Civil War than it has to do with these areas not being civilizationally compatible with the Liberal East coast.

kevindavis338 wrote:

NicknamedBob wrote:

Sam Cree wrote:

Gcruse, that's a pretty interesting scenario. Why don't you write a dystopia novel based on that and get it published?

If I may suggest, compare to Harry Turtledove, who acquires realism for his alternate-history scenarios by generating realistic fictional characters, and occasionally lifting real-life characters from the past when appropriate.

This technique allows him to jump back and forth between scenes, and carry the action forward with rapid steps.

Harry's novels I think portrayed in what America would be like had the north lost to the rebels imho.. I pray to god that there is a never civil war in America again..

Agreed that Gcruse's scenario is more pleasant than some that are out there.

I don't necessarily disagree with these, but I think the first thing will be explosions in major cities, like Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago. The ghettos will blow up, centered around drugs and gangs. Race will be used as a reason. They are almost already at that stage and it won't take much to light the fuse. The police won't be able to handle the situation. A governor will call in the National Guard and open rebellion will follow. The authorities will "seal off" the pieces of these cities and warlords will rise up (probably many in succession) . Living in those sealed off sections will be Hell on Earth. People will flee and be turned away from the borders of other states. We will get refugee camps and from those armed rebellions will rise. Meanwhile the states and the Feds will be going bankrupt and unable to handle the people. And, at that point, it will be time for some foreign influence to be felt - probably a major strike against US interests, one that we won't be able to counter (say Taiwan). We will become Russia as it is now, only a lot more bloody.

Well, Ouch is the nicest thing one can say.

Hmm. What does that do for the states in the mid-south? Should I haul ass now?

El Goodo wrote:

Hmm. What does that do for the states in the mid-south? Should I haul ass now?

Depends on how old you are and how much older you want to get. I think 20 years is around the right time frame.

The Edge Man wrote:

El Goodo wrote:

Hmm. What does that do for the states in the mid-south? Should I haul ass now?

Depends on how old you are and how much older you want to get. I think 20 years is around the right time frame.

Interesting time frame. About right. It is not a popular thought but I'm of the opinion that this "race war" dealio travels along the same lines as the war with Islam. I mean that in the way that Islamists were basically at war with us for years while we chose to ignore it. I believe that is happening in certain minority circles right now. The war is on but only one side is actively fighting it. Media representation is a key indicator. Take the Trayvon Martin shooting as the latest example of an organized, dishonest and egregious campaign to stir up racial antimosity towards white folks.

That is just wartime propaganda.

El Goodo wrote:

The war is on but only one side is actively fighting it. Media representation is a key indicator. Take the Trayvon Martin shooting as the latest example of an organized, dishonest and egregious campaign to stir up racial antimosity towards white folks.

That is just wartime propaganda.

Unless the crime is black on white. Then it receives less coverage.

I remember when Dallas newspapers stopped reporting the race of criminals, then they stopped publishing pictures of black criminals. The only way to surmise racial makeup was from names and what part of town the crime occurred in. Unless, as mentioned, it was white on black crime. Then it got the usual treatment.

You're right. There's been a war going on for decades against whites that the nation as a whole conspires to cover up, lest we actually fight back. It's similar to media's decision to stop airing footage of doomed people jumping from the WTC towers to avoid being burned to death. It just upsets the natives and detracts from 9/11 being a tragedy instead of an outrage that required anti-Islamic retribution.

gcruse wrote:

El Goodo wrote:

The war is on but only one side is actively fighting it. Media representation is a key indicator. Take the Trayvon Martin shooting as the latest example of an organized, dishonest and egregious campaign to stir up racial antimosity towards white folks.

That is just wartime propaganda.

Unless the crime is black on white. Then it receives less coverage.

I remember when Dallas newspapers stopped reporting the race of criminals, then they stopped publishing pictures of black criminals. The only way to surmise racial makeup was from names and what part of town the crime occurred in. Unless, as mentioned, it was white on black crime. Then it got the usual treatment.

You're right. There's been a war going on for decades against whites that the nation as a whole conspires to cover up, lest we actually fight back. It's similar to media's decision to stop airing footage of doomed people jumping from the WTC towers to avoid being burned to death. It just upsets the natives and detracts from 9/11 being a tragedy instead of an outrage that required anti-Islamic retribution.

Right. Now we see it manifested in the "lone crazy guy, not representative of any form of Islam, acting alone, without any help from anyone, especially not family members or other Muslims. Did I mention he was lone and crazy?" narrative.

It sure seems like the media really wants to get everyone pissed off at white people while simultaneously doing everything in their power to prevent whites from getting pissed off at anyone, well, except other white people.

El Goodo wrote:

gcruse wrote:

El Goodo wrote:

The war is on but only one side is actively fighting it. Media representation is a key indicator. Take the Trayvon Martin shooting as the latest example of an organized, dishonest and egregious campaign to stir up racial antimosity towards white folks.

That is just wartime propaganda.

Unless the crime is black on white. Then it receives less coverage.

I remember when Dallas newspapers stopped reporting the race of criminals, then they stopped publishing pictures of black criminals. The only way to surmise racial makeup was from names and what part of town the crime occurred in. Unless, as mentioned, it was white on black crime. Then it got the usual treatment.

You're right. There's been a war going on for decades against whites that the nation as a whole conspires to cover up, lest we actually fight back. It's similar to media's decision to stop airing footage of doomed people jumping from the WTC towers to avoid being burned to death. It just upsets the natives and detracts from 9/11 being a tragedy instead of an outrage that required anti-Islamic retribution.

Right. Now we see it manifested in the "lone crazy guy, not representative of any form of Islam, acting alone, without any help from anyone, especially not family members or other Muslims. Did I mention he was lone and crazy?" narrative.

It sure seems like the media really wants to get everyone pissed off at white people while simultaneously doing everything in their power to prevent whites from getting pissed off at anyone, well, except other white people.

Don't forget it is also manifest in the all whites/ all military/ all militias are to blame when someone like Timothy McVeigh blows something up. Whites are bad and are organized and working to be evil while all minorities that do bad things are lone gunmen.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would suggest that when dealing with such topics one should look at the history, and more specifically at the history of those who fought and won their civil wars. I would further suggest reading one vladimir lenin on the subject [I know, I know. Reading through 55 volumes set of his collected works is absolutely no fun even for those who know the language]. While such civil wars are discernible and analyzable in their general outline [at the level of who against whom], their details are neither discernible nor predictable in advance. Hence no scenarios make any sense, except as the works of fiction. And the thing about lenin was that prior to his revolution and the subsequent civil war he was concerning himself with what in other context could be called general fitness: capacity to grasp any situation and to utilize it to his advantage.