North would be cut off by blockades this time. This time the tables would be turned. The South holds most of the Military assets and could control energy. They could put the North in the dark and without fuel pretty quickly. If it as in the Winter?..lots of Yankees would freeze to death without fuel oil. The South also controls many of the major seaports and the Mississippi. The North would have a hard time with supplies. Maybe Canada might help.

and yes...this is a stupid thread.

(10-27-2013 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  North would be cut off by blockades this time. This time the tables would be turned. The South holds most of the Military assets and could control energy. They could put the North in the dark and without fuel pretty quickly. If it as in the Winter?..lots of Yankees would freeze to death without fuel oil. The South also controls many of the major seaports and the Mississippi. The North would have a hard time with supplies. Maybe Canada might help.

and yes...this is a stupid thread.

But apparently not stupid enough for you to contribute a well thought out reply.

The question is simple. It's a hypothetical scenario that is pretty straight forward.

(10-27-2013 05:23 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:18 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  North would be cut off by blockades this time. This time the tables would be turned. The South holds most of the Military assets and could control energy. They could put the North in the dark and without fuel pretty quickly. If it as in the Winter?..lots of Yankees would freeze to death without fuel oil. The South also controls many of the major seaports and the Mississippi. The North would have a hard time with supplies. Maybe Canada might help.

and yes...this is a stupid thread.

But apparently not stupid enough for you to contribute a well thought out reply.

The question is simple. It's a hypothetical scenario that is pretty straight forward.

i mean its not like anyone lived in the north without oil LOL

(10-27-2013 04:46 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:41 PM)Smaug Wrote:  What if one side had zombies?

What a dumb thread.

You wound me, sir.

(10-27-2013 05:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i mean its not like anyone lived in the north without oil LOL

Try living today without it.

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

They better get on those refineries. They point is they wouldn't have the asset.

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

Alaska and ND would side with the south. Canada would be boycotted by the north's environmentists and that leaves the north without that source. Mexico would finally be ***** slapped liked they should have been a long time ago and will do whatever is good for business.

(10-27-2013 05:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

They better get on those refineries. They point is they wouldn't have the asset.

True - refineries are mainly in TX and LA. So would have to import gasoline or turn to Natural gas. Could be a boost for green energy. Then they would find ways to build a refinery quickly.

(10-27-2013 05:52 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

They better get on those refineries. They point is they wouldn't have the asset.

True - refineries are mainly in TX and LA. So would have to import gasoline or turn to Natural gas. Could be a boost for green energy. Then they would find ways to build a refinery quickly.

I doubt ND would side with the north.

I don't know how clear cut the factions would be - what's left of the United States could be fighting multiple wars against multiple factions, which would make things easier on the seceding states, or most likely, make it easier for NATO, Mexico, Canada, China, Japan, etc. to interfere.

No one will be able to get around the NSA unless if they can destroy it first. The United States' surveillance abilities will make it hard for anyone to secede. If there were a North-South split, Utah would likely want to join with the South, but they have one of the NSA's major data centers.

It might be easier for Canada to offer parts of Minnesota and Wisconsin, the northeast, and the Seattle and Portland areas an offer to join - those areas would have similar political leanings to Canada. California, South Florida, greater Chicago, and parts of the I-95 corridor would be the only real misfits politically with the rest of what would be left of the United States. Get Mexico to nibble off parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California.

(10-27-2013 05:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

Alaska and ND would side with the south. Canada would be boycotted by the north's environmentists and that leaves the north without that source. Mexico would finally be ***** slapped liked they should have been a long time ago and will do whatever is good for business.

Since you would no longer have to be a US citizen to vote in TX, they may vote to rejoin their mother country of Mexico instead of the new confederacy.

I thought northern progressives were pacifists. Should be the south by a long shot.

(10-27-2013 06:02 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:51 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

Alaska and ND would side with the south. Canada would be boycotted by the north's environmentists and that leaves the north without that source. Mexico would finally be ***** slapped liked they should have been a long time ago and will do whatever is good for business.

Since you would no longer have to be a US citizen to vote in TX, they may vote to rejoin their mother country of Mexico instead of the new confederacy.

Who said non citizens would be able to vite in Texas?

From War Games:
" [after playing out all possible outcomes for Global Thermonuclear War]

Joshua: Greetings, Professor Falken.

Stephen Falken: Hello, Joshua.

Joshua: A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess? "

We'd all lose if there was another civil war. Non violent secession is the answer, not war.

(10-27-2013 04:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:08 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:02 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 03:56 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Let's keep in mind the South is bigger and richer than it was in 1861.

For discussion - what states do you think would leave today?

The south was rich in 1861, just not industrialized.

http://www.thesouthlandssteelmagnolia.com/The_South.jpg

plus Kentucky and some western and midwestern states.

Not sure Florida and NC would join, but Utah and KS may.

NC yes, Virginia no. West Virginia, possibly. I think the mood has changed in WV since the 1800s.

We (NC) barely left in 1861, voted against even holding a convention to consider it the first time, voted to secede only after Lincoln called for all the states to provide troops. We probably had more Union support than any other state in the CSA as well. I don't think we would make the same mistake twice.

(10-27-2013 06:06 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:21 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:08 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:06 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:02 PM)dcCid Wrote:  For discussion - what states do you think would leave today?

The south was rich in 1861, just not industrialized.

http://www.thesouthlandssteelmagnolia.com/The_South.jpg

plus Kentucky and some western and midwestern states.

Not sure Florida and NC would join, but Utah and KS may.

NC yes, Virginia no. West Virginia, possibly. I think the mood has changed in WV since the 1800s.

We (NC) barely left in 1861, voted against even holding a convention to consider it the first time, voted to secede only after Lincoln called for all the states to provide troops. We probably had more Union support than any other state in the CSA as well. I don't think we would make the same mistake twice.

all of the states barely left in 1861. it was all an over reaction driven by the elite 1% who wanted the secession to happen. they kinda forced the secession conventions through before cooler heads could prevail & before the unionists could organize. in fact mississippi left on a 51% 49% vote. virginia, arkansas north carolina, & tenn, didnt leave until forced to pick a side

its really one of the greatest coup's in history

(10-27-2013 05:52 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

They better get on those refineries. They point is they wouldn't have the asset.

True - refineries are mainly in TX and LA. So would have to import gasoline or turn to Natural gas. Could be a boost for green energy. Then they would find ways to build a refinery quickly.

Really? Bombing ourselves country wide would be good for green energy? So, we lay waste to ourselves and we'll be burning 2X4's for "our energy", but somehow, green energy will thrive?

(10-27-2013 05:52 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 05:46 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:37 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 04:30 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  And the north would have no oil

Exactly.

Yes from Canada, Alaska and ND and the gulf of Mexico. The south would just be blockaded again.

They better get on those refineries. They point is they wouldn't have the asset.

True - refineries are mainly in TX and LA. So would have to import gasoline or turn to Natural gas. Could be a boost for green energy. Then they would find ways to build a refinery quickly.

Wouldn't the north and left coast prefer solar powered vehicles and may electric tanks and planes to stuff that harms the environment. Maybe the south will wait till the technology is developed.