Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Phil Hawkins's avatar

My guess is things are going to be ugly for a while. But a split simply is not viable. In 1861, the seceding states at least looked like a contiguous block (it wasn't perfect, that's how we ended up with the state of West Virginia). Here is a map of the 2020 presidential election, by county. https://brilliantmaps.com/2020-county-election-map/

I like this map because it uses 5 shades of both red and blue to show the strength of the vote. There are only four states that are completely blue--Hawaii, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. I live in Indiana, which has five blue counties. Three of those are dominated by college towns--Purdue, IU, and Notre Dame. The other universities in the state were only able to make their counties lighter red. The other two blue spots are Marion County (Indianapolis) and Lake County (Chicago suburbs).

As you look around the map, you can spot all the major cities. There are a few rural areas that are blue, but not nearly as many as the red ones.

The reason I think a split is not viable is a strategic reality: you have to be able to control the countryside. That was why the British lost in the American Revolution. They could take any city, but they couldn't control the surrounding countryside. The Southern Campaign was the last attempt by the British, and it failed. Cornwallis tried to use his main army and two detached forces to gain control; the battles of Kings Mountain and Cowpens wiped out both of his detached forces. Cornwallis barely managed a win at Guilford Courthouse, but after a few more scrapes he headed for the coast at Yorktown, hoping the British fleet could bail him out--but the French fleet and Washington's army got there first.

Even in modern warfare, controlling the countryside is still an issue. It was a major problem in Vietnam, and even with satellites and drones, it was still a problem in Afghanistan!

Yes, modern cities have a lot of the population. That is an advantage in elections; it will be a serious disadvantage in a civil war. All of those city dwellers will expect to have their electricity stay on, their furnaces to have gas and oil, and their grocery stores to have food. Whoever controls the countryside can cut a lot--or even most--of that off. A lot of the power plants are outside the city limits--California gets over 20% of their electricity from out of state! Most food is trucked in from outside the city--most grocery stores don't have much more than a 3-day supply on hand. How much food do they grow within the city limits of NYC or Washington DC?

Can they do a Berlin-style airlift? Doing that for one city in 1947 was one thing; doing it for 30 or 40 cities is not nearly as possible (especially in a shooting war!).

So things could get ugly for a while, but the long-term result is already knowable. How long it will take for the hard left to face reality is what we will have to see.

Expand full comment
DJL's avatar

The author of this Washington Examiner opinion piece is a former FBI agent, Thomas Baker. He has a book coming out later this year titled The Fall of the FBI.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/has-the-fbi-become-a-threat-to-democracy

Expand full comment
25 more comments...

No posts