Invasion Scenario

[Doug.38PR]

Suppose...15 years down the road Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi got sick of all those worthless clowns in Washington and seceded from the United States and formed their own little union called...Miss Texiana (Now, how Southern is that? ) The men in the National Guard withdraw to these states and join the State Guard or State Defense forces, the congressman and senators come home. Ron Paul is elected President, Nolan Ryan is elected governor of Texas and other famous well liked down to earth men are elected to governor position in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Say we had a president in the white house who said "this is a sin against the stars and stripes! America is the greatest country in the world, this can't happen, we must stay one nation, (insert idealogical blather for public sensationalism)" (sounds of Battle Hymn of the Republic playing in the background ) FOX news, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are all comparing the people of these states to Hezbollah and Al Kaida and Osama and Hitler and Pol Pot and every other thug throughout history because they dared to leave the neoconartist nation. On the other side of the fence we have Ted Kennedy (at an extreme old age) saying "let them go we don't need the gap toothed backwads Christian twaila twash people " This is reinforced by Phil Donhaue, CNN and Headline News et al.

In the middle you have saner radio heads like Glenn Beck, Walter Williams and Michael Medvid saying, "these are fine people, let them go, they are just acting on the same principles as the Founding Fathers did in the Declaration of Independence, they'd make good neighbors and allies etc. etc."

But, as in many cases, saner heads to not prevail.

War is declared by the President (oh well, what's the Constitution to a politician) And the United States Army is sent into these states to overthrow the democratically elected governments of these three states so they can be returned to "the American People."

NOW!!! Scenario established. THIS IS WHERE THIS THREAD BECOMES GUN RELATED. Would the state defense forces (consisting of active state defense guards and former national guardsmen....some of whom saw action in Iraq 15 years earlier) be able to repel this invasion. What about gun owners? Militias (I mean real militia not these bitter eccentrics out in the woods today) composed of men like you and me and in some cases put together by righteous wealthy men to supply ammo and field supplies. Or just neighbors getting together with things as simple as bolt action hunting rifles to engage in partisan-bushwacking warfare.

I remember reading a long time ago that the Communist Soviet Union knew that they could never invade the United States and win because so many people there owned guns. Even if they could defeat the regular armies, the civilians were still armed.

How do you think such an event would turn out? What would go down? How would units be put together? What needs would this new country have to provide for itself in terms of defense?

The bottom line of the discussion is this, how would a war on our soil be handled. What would you do if suddenly there was a war going on in your backyard.

We haven't faced such a problem in close to 150 years. All wars have been overseas.

This is one reason the founding fathers believed in the right to keep and bear arms. Not just so we could go duck hunting, not just so we could walk down the street safely. But in case of war from a foreign power.

Yes I thought of the movie Red Dawn too, but lets not get too bogged down in corny movies with bad actors. (as entertaining as I find that movie)

 

[1911Tuner]

Secession!

Dunno about the rest of it, but I like the Miss Texiana thing. Hmmm..Miss Arkantexiana?

 

[HankB]

That would be grim . . . a second War of Northern Aggression.

With only three states, it would probably turn out like the first one.

Rather than succession, an aggressive assertion of state's rights under the 10th Amendment would likely have more success.

And the States overtly designating all adult citizens members of a state militia would cause Constitutional problems for all the Federal gun grabbers.

 

[Doug.38PR]

Rather than succession, an aggressive assertion of state's rights under the 10th Amendment would likely have more success.

The right of secession is the key check to a central government exercising absolute power. If the possibility of secession isn't there, then the government ultimately can (and has) do anything it want's to the states no matter how much your governor or congressman protests over the 10th amendment being violated.

With only three states, it would probably turn out like the first one.

Not necessarily. 13 frontier colonies did it sucessfully from England in 1776. Texas alone did it in 1836 against the (then) largest most powerful army in the Western Hemisphere.

And the States overtly designating all adult citizens members of a state militia would cause Constitutional problems for all the Federal gun grabbers.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that. I mean't voluntary militias

EDIT: Note everyone that all of this is hypothetical. Let's say all avenues of petitioning on the floor of the House and Senate have failed (and now that i think about it.....they have....for a very long time ) This is more a thread about handling invasion than about how to go about preserving states rights and working in the political arena.

 

[The Guy]

Ummm, have you read Molon Labe! yet? If not you need to. www.javelinpress.com

If any state ever goes by the way, and it is a good state conforming to the original constiution, I'm moving there ASAP before the road blocks, walls, and machine gun towers go in on the "amerikan" side of things.

 

[Rich K]

+1. I would be heading there myself.

 

[Nick1911]

The resources that TX, MI and LA have in terms of nuclear force from military bases would be enough to keep the USA from messing with it. Those 3 states have enough nuclear capiabilities to damage the US pretty badly, and they would threaten to use that power if they were smart.

Other then that, a standing army would need to be formed, and quick! It wouldn't take long for the people of those states to set up factories and turn out M-16's, AK's, rockets, etc.

If the northern US 'invades', broadcast over all media - "You have 24 hours to leave, or we will level new york with a nuclear weapon". And don't bluff.

That said, none of this will ever happen.

 

[sparx]

It won't happen... there's just not enough southern soldiers and armament to combat the north since the Yankee prez (gotta' be a Yankee, right? Or he'd be settin' up office in the Alamo!) will just play the cards he's got up his sleeves (bases loaded with personnel, planes, tanks and artillery located around the world). With all the outsourcing that's already in place as well, it's not like we could starve them of anything of value, either, except perhaps Vadalia onions and crawdads!

Oh, and the Yankees won't get to have a Dell anymore, either!

 

[ball3006]

Texas does not have to secede....

from the union. By treaty, Texas can leave at any time. Texas used to be a republic before it joined with the US.....MS and LA are a different story.........chris3

 

[Doug.38PR]

from the union. By treaty, Texas can leave at any time. Texas used to be a republic before it joined with the US.....MS and LA are a different story.........chris3

MS. and LA. and all the other states entered the union as free sovereign and independent states just like Texas. Yes Texas when it entered the union made it clear in writing that it could leave the union. This was to stress the right. But this was a given fact 200 years ago in America (pre webster/Hamilton/Hobbs philosophy). In fact, Virginia, I think New Jersey, and several new England states had this written into their own state constitutions hwen they originally joined the Union in 1787. New England states threatened secession several times prior to the War Between the States. After the Louisiana Purchase and during the War of 1812 to name two occasions. After the South seceded in 1861 prior to Lincoln trying to reinforce Fort Sumter and the War starting, there was talk of a Atlantic Confederation among Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware and I think New York. New York City even threatened to secede from the U.S. and even the state of New York.
Secession is nothing unique to the War Between the States or the Texas War for Independence or even North America. It is a historical act of a people preserving their liberties from a central authority.

I'm not so sure mushrooms sprouting all across North America is what necessarily would happen....unless they took Lincoln scorched earth policy of Total War. Bottom line, you can bomb a country all you want, but you eventually have to send in men on the ground to take it and hold it.
Still a missile defense system or Star Wars defense system would be in order

 

[Preacherman]

Heck, Louisiana doesn't need to secede. All we need to do is ensure that our politicians (with particular emphasis on Ray Nagin and Governor Blanco) are elected to national office. Won't be long before they destroy the whole country, same as they're destroying the state - so then there wouldn't be anything left to secede from!

:banghead:

 

[Jim Watson]

Or you could just read "A State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman.

 

[The_Shootist]

Dunno...

I figure here in Texas we have more AK's/AR15's per square mile than anyplace in the country.

And if a US army in Iraq of almost 140,000 can't squash some insurgency by Islamic riff-raff, do you think they'd have any more success against a SOUTHERN insurgency in Tx-LA-Miss? Bet that scenario would raise the hairs on the backs of a few generals necks after Iraq. Just myself with my AK in an ambush position could take out at least 4-5 Union soldiers before they got me. Multiply that by a few thousand and the casualty toll gets to Vietnam proportions uncomfortably quickly.

I'm not even terribly convinced the Northerners would have much stomach to see a bunch of Stars & Stripes draped coffins trickling home, given the bunch of ant-war left wing toadies presently moaning about the Iraq war. Also, it would be waaaaaay too easy for Dixie guerillas to hit power plants, cut off interior oil pipelines, dirty bomb cities etc to make Northeren life miserable to the point where the Yanks's would say "To hell with it - let'm go".

Oh - but wait? Isn't 75% of current army enlistment Southern to begin with? Hmmmm

 

[grampster]

Insurgency. Guerrilla warfare. Nasty business, lousy life. You wouldn't want to be there. It would take several years, but the seccesionist states would eventually sue for peace and rejoin the Union. Many more years of rebuilding would ensue.

It would be more efficacious to attempt to raise the public's conscience to the point where local and state government would actually become aware of their real pupose; local homerule. If it began to work at the county and state levels in a couple of states, other states would catch on and eventually the whole Federal system would go back to being a Republic again instead of a benevolent dictatorship. Unfunded mandates and Federal blackmail (ex: you won't get road funds unless you throw everybody under a jail that breath tests .08--never mind that 95% of auto injuries and deaths are as a result of those testing over .12) are examples of the benevolent dictatorship. If our school boards and media execs actually cared whether America remained free, they have the power to make sure by teaching and proclaiming.

If, somehow, the unwashed masses realized how much power we really still have, and began to pay attention and be involved in the process instead of shopping for their new ATV, or watching the Reality TV dreck, momentous things could happen.

 

[Biker]

Damn Grampster, you hit that one out of the park!

Biker

 

[atlctyslkr]

I think we could get a few other states to join this union as well. I'm all for it. The Federal Government has become the master regulator. If states didn't take federal money then the federal government would lose it's power and fade back into a defender of our shores -- WHICH IS THE ONLY JOB THEY SHOULD DO! 100 years ago the only contact most people had with the federal government was getting their mail and using money (which as real silver then by the way). Now you've got a Federal law dealing with just about everything!

 

[atlctyslkr]

I think we could get a few other states to join this union as well. I'm all for it. The Federal Government has become the master regulator. If states didn't take federal money then the federal government would lose it's power and fade back into a defender of our shores -- WHICH IS THE ONLY JOB THEY SHOULD DO! 100 years ago the only contact most people had with the federal government was getting their mail and using money (which as real silver then by the way). Now you've got a Federal law dealing with just about everything!

 

[romma]

And if a US army in Iraq of almost 140,000 can't squash some insurgency by Islamic riff-raff, do you think they'd have any more success against a SOUTHERN insurgency in Tx-LA-Miss?

Absolutely. The United States Government won't be worrying about global pressure from foreign powers in Good Ole Texas, The liberal media would be rejuvenated and enthralled to report folks down there getting butts kicked... The gloves would come off so to speak.

 

[Furncliff]

...................

.

 

[kfranz]

They'd get their rear ends handed to them, just like the first time.

How many Texans are going to strap explosives to their chests and blow up a church in their newly founded country?

 

[Doug.38PR]

Oh - but wait? Isn't 75% of current army enlistment Southern to begin with? Hmmmm

I don't know if that figure is correct, but a higher proportion of the men in the military today (and pretty much through every war in American history) have been Southern.

 

[atlctyslkr]

They'd get their rear ends handed to them, just like the first time.

If the south is so bad then why do we get so many northerners down here? I know very few people who were born and raised here. Most people I work with and do business with have come from somewhere else.

It's better here and we know it! The food is better, the weather is better, and so are the girls!

Try Standing Your Ground in New Yaawk. Start something with a good old boy and eat lead!

 

[Doug.38PR]

I know very few people who were born and raised here. Most people I work with and do business with have come from somewhere else.

That's 'cause you're in Atlanta. My hometown of Houston, Dallas and Austin are like that too in my state (those who love to ridicule the South love to move down here and then say how behind the times we are and how we don't live up to their standards everything is Flattery will get them nowhere .) . Outside the cities are where the real culture is these days.

Anyway,
Kfrands, no need to start shooting at us (I thought that particular war was supposed to be over). The thread is about a hypothetical invasion of your home. Think of your WI and a few surrounding states being invaded by other states.

 

[Low-Sci]

The question is would the US armed forces win if a war has to break out? Well, yeah. They'd crush the national guard, and then the situation changes.

Then it really depends on how much they learned from fighting insurgency in Iraq. If they learned a lot and implemented that learning, they'd also crush the insurgency.

Either way, you'd be looking at an occupation, because they would occupy, no doubt about it.

So to fight the occupation, you'd almost invariably have to use guerilla tactics. These may manifest themselves in the form of car bombs, sniper attacks, the occasional rocket attack, and since they would be occurring in civilian areas (because that's where the occupation is) they would be referred to in the US as terrorist attacks on the reunification force, or some business like that.

So the real question is, can you win when your enemy is several orders of magnitude more numerous than you, better equipped, with a better propoganda machine, and all you can do is resort to attack that will be called terrorism?

No. You'd lose. It may take you a very long time, and cost very many lives, but you'd lose.

Least thats what I think.

 

[Doug.38PR]

No. You'd lose. It may take you a very long time, and cost very many lives, but you'd lose

You paint a pretty ugly picture. One Robert E. Lee pictured when Col. E.P. Alexander suggested using "bushwacking" tactics on Grants army right before he surrendered at Appomattox. The Southern people had already been burned out of their homes and looted for 4 years. Such tactics would press the iron heel down even more as the civilians would feel the pressure of the occupation.

I disagree with saying that the underdog would lose. Occupation armies can't ever crush out the underground or any force fighting on it's own home soil if it is determined. In reality they never have. Occupying armies can keep killing the enemy but for every one you kill, you just breed 10 more. Vietnam, the US army kept winning battles, but they never could defeat the enemy, they just kept losing more and more men as the years rolled on fighting on foreign soil. Some thing with the British in the American War for Independence. They eventually just got tired of it. That is ultimately, I think, what is going to happen in Iraq. Pat Buchanan wrote an article a few months back expressing similar thoughts. Even William Buckley is starting to question the wisdom of the Iraq war.

However, the aftermath of such a thing would be devistating to the culture (or lack thereof) left behind after such a bloody war, (which is what Lee feared in 1865)

On the other hand, I think you underestimate the condition of the State guards. Many of them would be veterans of the Iraq and Afganistan War. As noted above, Southerners have always contributed a higher percentage of their male population to the military. A notable story from the War Between the States has then commander of the Union army Winfield Scott being ask by Lincoln "With few men in Mexico 13 years ago you entered Mexico City against a larger army. With all your overwhelming resources and men now, why can't you get me into Richmond today?" And Scott's reply, "Because, Mr. President, those same men who got me into Mexico City then, are the same ones keeping me out of Richmond today." Those are not exact quotes, but that's basically what was said from my memory.