If there was a Civil War between the North and South again in this day and age, who would win?
The South's only advantage is they have more hillbillies.
The South would be crushed. Again. The north once again has population superiority, financial superiority, industrial capacity and potential, aerial supremacy and technological bases.
We have another thing that would lend us strength that we didn't last time. A strong federal government with the ability to coordinate logistics and have a monopoly on diplomacy due to its inherent legitimacy.
Same as it went last time. North has more people, money & resources. But really, you don't even need to fire a shot. Just cut off the red state welfare, make them fend for themselves. They won't last long.
The south would lick those darn Yanks.
Whoever succeeds will not have legitimacy and would likely lose do to foreign intervention.
Thanks, Nuclear! You're the only person besides me that has even considered that it might not be the south seceding! Lol I don't see that happening in today's climate of Republican control!
@smahg. Ugh. Thank you. I was a bit inebriated at the time. Haha
And I couldn't assume it'd be the south since there is talk for California as well. But the biggest likelihood for secession would be the states of Hawaii, Alaska, and Texas.
The North. We would have a ton more States than last time.
What do states have to do with anything?
More people, more supplies, more land.
The people there have safe spaces and trigger warnings. We have guns. Be honest with yourself, the South would totally win.
Well that one state with a ton of safe places and trigger warnings (not naming any names) also has stationed in it the largest US naval fleet, so the South would be bombarded badly during battle for key cities on the ocean. The state next to the trigger state also has the largest piece of the US Air Force, so be prepared to get strafed wherever you go. This isn't even counting the massive population comparison, the percentage of weapons manufacturers in the North, the allies who would support the US, AND the fact that most ICBMs and anti-nuke systems are in the North. A gun toting Texas is all the South got going for it.
Yeah, I don't see the South even coming close. The North has resources, allies, people, land, literally every measure larger.
The south and north wouldnt go against eachother anyway. It would either be Republican vs Democrat or People vs Government. I will tell you now that Republicans would win, and depending on how much of the people come together, the people can win against the government if enough stand up to them.
Why are y'all all assuming the government would be on the side of the North, and thus they would have the military? Are you assuming that the south seceded?
Whoever did not secede would have the government on their side, as secession is an act against the US government.
It today's climate, I don't see the south seceding when Republicans are in control. So the South would have the government's and the military's might in that scenario! Lol
Plus all the guns. And TX is NOT the only state that has a lot of guns. See my posts below to see how southern kids grow up and about what I did on one of my first dates with hubby! Lol
The question was specifically talking about a re-run of the civil war so the North would have the government but each side would take over their respective stationed military equipment, government or not. Yet in today's climate it would probably be East v. West, because East tends to be more traditionalist Democrat of Republican while West is more 'progressive'. In that case the East would smash the West.
The South has guns. The North has gun control. The South wins.
The union is the best and would win easily!
The North has the federal government, the backing of Europe, and funds.
How do you know the North would have all that now?
Because any states that secede, would be going against the union. The union is the Federal Government.
Especially since most of the federal government is in Republican control now, as is the south.
The countries allied to the union would support its stability
Can someone please post the poll question so I can read it again? Thanks!
Even with republican control, what does that mean? They would actively be going against their oaths and would Mostlikley be either tried for treason, seriously fined, or expelled from public office
4JC it is who do you think would win if another civil war happened between the north and south
Thank you, MrAmerica!
CdtlMJ, the reason I asked to read the poll again is because it is as I thought it was--the question is "Who do you think would win if another civil war happened between the north and the south." You are assuming that the south seceded. I assumed nothing. Maybe the north seceded this time (especially in today's climate with DJT as president and Republicans in control--this would be the more likely scenario! Lol)
I'm also not talking about anybody in office. I'm talking about the people that would be fighting--southerners with guns and ammo stockpiled, with the know how and many hours of shooting practice, killing their own meat to be able to eat, etc. vs northerners that are more likely not to have been engaged in those activities.
Many people don't realize how many Southerners grow up. Many of them receive BB guns, rifles and shotguns for Christmas presents when they are children and teens. One of the first times I met my future husband's family, we went to an old quarry and did target practice with rifles and shotguns. Many women and teen girls carry for protection. These rural, country people grow up learning how to put food on the table and defend themselves.
They also love to camp, grow up learning wilderness skills, and love mud riding, so roughing it, and getting dirty are no probs, even for girls! Lol
Having said that, my hubby disagrees with me. He thinks the North has more manufacturing, so they would win again. And one of the questions about this poll is this--are you talking about just the states that fought in the Civil War before, or are you talking about drawing a line all the way across the US, so that AZ, etc. would be in the south?
Having asked that question, @gluxford1 who would AZ side with? I say the south, but hubby thinks all the western states would side with the north.
I'm assuming the south seceded because that has been a reoccurring feeling for most of US history. And with manufacturing, you're talking about industrial, rich, northern states against poor, south Midwest and southern states. There is also the population difference, as more people can be mobilized. And the reason I stress the federal government is because that's where the armed forces control goes to. D.C. Is technically in the north, it opposes secession, and the states that are the most volatile to secession is the south, especially Texas.
I would've agreed with you on many points before now, but things are going our way, now, and we have hope for richer states in the future, so I don't see that scenario happening any time soon.
I think the poll question is too vague to take into account all the different scenarios. For instance, what issue/issues caused the secession?
Just because DC is in the North doesn't mean they would side with the north. They would be bound to side against whoever secedes, after all, as that is an act against the US government.
I can't see Republican states seceding from a largely Republican held government, so I think it would be the North that would secede right now, if anyone does. Or California--they've been talking about seceding just as much as TX has. I can see them possibly doing this now.
Well, if California secedes, may they beg for mercy, because it's not coming from the US. Same with Texas. And the south has generally always been more secessionist regardless. The North has historically, and recently been strongly tied to the federal government, so I fully believe the North would have its support.
Can you explain what you mean by "the south has generally always been more secessionist regardless"? Are you basing that on the Civil War alone? I've never heard anybody talking about seceding in the south, other than the recent talks from a minority of people in TX.
Here is an article about TX.
It clearly states:
"There hasn’t been any recent polling, but a 2009 Rasmussen Reports survey found that 31 percent of Texans say the state has a right to secede but just 18 percent of Texans would vote to secede from the U.S. if given a choice. Three-fourths of Texas citizens said they oppose secession.
That 18 percent figure is identical to the percentage of Americans who say they favor allowing their state or region to secede from the nation, according to a 2008 Zogby poll. So Texas is no more secessionist than, say, Alaska. Or Rhode Island."
Here's another article that clearly shows that what we consider the South is NOT the highest percentage that wants to secede. It is the Southwest! Even the Rocky Mtn. States are slightly higher than the Southeastern States to want to secede! And the North is not very far behind! Lol
Sorry, I forgot the link.
I thought this part was especially telling:
"Those we spoke to seemed to have answered as they did as a form of protest that was neither red nor blue but a polychromatic riot — against a recovery that has yet to produce jobs, against jobs that don’t pay, against mistreatment of veterans, against war, against deficits, against hyper-partisanship, against political corruption, against illegal immigration, against the assault on marriage, against the assault on same-sex marriage, against government in the bedroom, against government in general — the president, Congress, the courts and both political parties.
By the evidence of the poll data as well as these anecdotal conversations, the sense of aggrievement is comprehensive, bipartisan, somewhat incoherent, but deeply felt."