If a second American Revolution where to happen....

[Legiondude]

So that leaves... no one that could even come close to challenging the US miltary.

Two words:
Trade blockade.
An army can't run on a hungry stomach or without oil.

1. Who has the navy for that?
2. Who wants to pay for that blockade?
3. You've got a packed in people, tense from combat, now being starved. You're forcing them into a situation where they're willing to do anything for supplies and two very vulnerable nations on either end of the continent.

I'm not saying it'd be tactically sound for the US Military or the Rebels, but raiding civilian centers in Mexico and Canada with a high risk of casualties would be the result of this

 

[Dragon Zero]

Too many variables. And losing the orders didn't do as much damage as it should have. Sure the invasion wasn't successful, but it's just as likely that it would have failed anyway. After all, Lee's Second Invasion failed and in that one the forces were almost equal, whereas in the first, McClellan outnumbered Lee almost 2:1.

McClellan should have won. Antietam/Sharpsburg should have been Lee's last battle. But the entire thing was so poorly handled its embarrassing. Catching Lee with only half his forces at hand, then waiting several days before attack (thereby giving Lee time to assemble his forces). And Rather than advancing on all fronts simultaneously, attacking "in echelon" allowing Confederate forces to use their interior lines to bring reinforcements to threatened areas. Not to mention the fact he kept his largest corp completely out of the fight.
Burnside didn't help matters either, sending waves of men fruitlessly over a bridge all day, without bothering to check if the water it was over was fordable (by some accounts it was actually little over waist high).

The basic problem I always have with Alternate history is it tends to suggest that changing a single thing could have drastic consequences (like the three Union soldiers NOT finding those cigars). Problem with that is there are simply too many moving parts. For all we know, if Lee had managed to assemble his forces like he planned, maybe he'd have broken them on the Union Army (like he did 2 years later at Gettysburg), except maybe this time he didn't make it back across the Potomac.

maybe, maybe...

What if, what if...

Too much guesswork to get anything solid. Most Alternate history I've read felt more like Fan-Fic. The author wanted to the South to win so dreamed up a scenario in which they did (In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a Civil War buff, so all the ALTHist I've read has been related to that).

The most comical one I read was The Guns of the South. In short: a Time traveler brings Lee's troops AK-47s. Laughed my ass off at that one.

There's nothing wrong with AltHist. I suppose it's just as valid as any literature (more so than some), but as someone who is interested in history, it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's hard enough to get the facts about the history that actually happened.

I mean a lot of Americans still think The Emancipation Proclamation STARTED the Civil War.

I still want to read the AK one, my brother suggested it to me a few years ago, is it really as hilarious as I think it might be?

Anyway I think you might enjoy the series by Newt Gingrich and William R. Forstchen, it does not treat history like changing one event changes everything. Especially the whole one battle thing which also pisses me off sometimes too.

I'd at least like to see them get creative with it like one where the South decided to make use of their agriculture to feed itself and export the excess to Europe for cheaper than the Yankees were rather than just make more cotton. Perhaps one where a European power decided to invade while both sides fought. Even one where after the defeat at Petersburg, the CSA armies decided to wage a purely guerilla war.

 

[II2]

Wasn't Orson Scott Card's Shadow Empire and Epic's XBLA "Shadow Complex" essentially about that - a near future 2nd American revolution sparked by an extremely well organized, technologically enabled paramilitary organization tying to bring the "Revival".

Regardless, it would be extremely ugly, chaotic and tragic were it to happen IRL.

 

[Fijiman]

I think you may have revolution confused with civil war. Although to answer the question, the shit would probably hit the fan with the force of a nuclear bomb.

 

[Krantos]

I still want to read the AK one, my brother suggested it to me a few years ago, is it really as hilarious as I think it might be?

In case you're planning on reading it, I won't tell you anything other than it plays out like a Southern Sympathizer's wet dream.

And yes, it's as funny as you're probably thinking. Worst (best?) part is it doesn't seem like it's trying to be. It plays everything extremely straight.

Oh, and you'll get a laugh out of the Time Traveler's motivations... So bad, I hope that part was a joke.

 

[applesandoranges]

edit

 

[chadachada123]

I didn't mean to upset you but I had to make my point. Your point is still mind bogglingly stupid. We already have a democratic republic. We CHOOSE our government, on a pretty regular basis.

While you may not be happy with the job they are doing many of your fellow citizens are. That may bother you, you are welcome to go join a campaign and actually do something about it. But you don't actually want to work at change, no, that sounds hard. So instead you wish for a military coup, like a young child having a daydream, which you think will be some wonderful thing.

Oh god this new layout is nauseating.

But of course I'm daydreaming, if a true revolution were to start to occur, there would need to be a hundred factors that would have to go perfectly, lest the revolution fail, or be taken over by dictators, or any of a million other things. That was the purpose of this thread, right? Daydreaming?

Egypt turned out quite well after their revolt, and now have a new constitution meant to prevent the corruption and abuses of power from the previous government. My dream would be a repeat of that, since our current constitution not only isn't followed but limits power to two corrupted parties. The only difference between here and Egypt pre-revolution is that we have two legally recognized parties as opposed to one.

As long as the military didn't fully take over (and I doubt they would, since they're mostly filled with regular Americans), there is little way that it could be worse in the long run than we are right now.

 

[Killspre]

Who would america Revolt against? Canada? This makes no sense I think you meant a second civil war because as it stands no one is oppressing america.

 

[chadachada123]

Except that our "two party" system only exists because people only vote for the two parties. Its not like other political parties can't run or even some day supersede the Republicans or Democrats.

Again, it all comes down to voting and campaigning. The truth is we have it VERY good in the US, I've lived in other countries, in the developing world, and people in the US have no idea what is like to live such a place. There is a reason people keep voting for the people in power. Despite all our problems things are a lot better than they could be.

The issue is that our winner-takes-all system encourages voters to not actually vote for who they want to win, but to instead vote for the 'lesser of two evils.' Our system will ALWAYS lead to a two-party system, even if one of the two parties ends up being replaced with another (which has only happened some three times ever in our nation's history).

The other issue is that the US doesn't allow for direct referendum, meaning that the first issue can never be solved without a revolution, so long as we have representative voting.

The solution is to enact a system similar to the one I'll post below, which can never happen with our two-party system without a referendum, at least not within the next 50 years at least with how uneducated our citizenry is.

This video is the most important:


I also recommend this video, the prequel to the above video:
And a couple of his other videos that explain some of the issues with most election systems, and/or alternatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Actually, just watch all of his videos on elections. They're fantastic.

 

[TallanKhan]

Im sorry what exactly is aim of a second american revolution? I mean, i get that american democracy isnt perfect but whats the desired outcome or change? And why can it only be achieved through all out civil war?

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

I also recommend this video, the prequel to the above video:

God I love those videos.

OT: Im not asking IF the revolution would happen, im asking if other countries would do things to aid the ones rebelling. If so, who and how?

 

[ElPatron]

It would end very horrifically. The largest military in the world facing off against one of the most heavily armed citizeries in the world. That's a recipie for disaster right there.

I disagree. A lot of the military would just refuse to shoot civilians if the Government was explicitly violating the constitution.

...why would there even be on at all? There's some dysfunction in the government, but there really isn't that much wrong. Additionally, it would get crushed. No matter how many guns the citizenry has, they can't stand up to modern armor and air support.

Do you know what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Vietnam?

You might have armor, but when rebels are able to create shaped-charges to take them down, rig entire streets with explosives or just hide in almost 10 million square kilometers of surface... Your morale starts chipping away when you see all your friends being maimed by explosives.

In case of revolution, never assume direct confrontation.

Spoiler

The funny thing is that I am pretty sure those are airsoft.

If those were to be real, we'd be looking at a collection worth several thousands of dollars that also included weapons illegal for civilian ownership.

 

[Nielas]

I disagree. A lot of the military would just refuse to shoot civilians if the Government was explicitly violating the constitution.

...why would there even be on at all? There's some dysfunction in the government, but there really isn't that much wrong. Additionally, it would get crushed. No matter how many guns the citizenry has, they can't stand up to modern armor and air support.

Do you know what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq or even Vietnam?

You might have armor, but when rebels are able to create shaped-charges to take them down, rig entire streets with explosives or just hide in almost 10 million square kilometers of surface... Your morale starts chipping away when you see all your friends being maimed by explosives.

In case of revolution, never assume direct confrontation.

It really would boil down to how much of the military would be willing to support the government. If the government orders them to fire on civilians then most units would probably mutiny. However, more likely they would be sent to protect a building or even a loyalist neighborhood. If someone starts firing at the soldiers, they are going to shoot back. Kent State did not happen because the National Guard was ordered to shoot on the students but because some soldiers panicked and opened fire.

The other issue is that not all the civilians will be on the side of the rebels. There will be loyalists who will oppose the rebels on principle or because the rebels have hurt them or their family. They will fight their own guerrilla warfare against the rebels. The rebels will be on the receiving end of IEDs soon enough.

 

[Nielas]

I still want to read the AK one, my brother suggested it to me a few years ago, is it really as hilarious as I think it might be?

In case you're planning on reading it, I won't tell you anything other than it plays out like a Southern Sympathizer's wet dream.

And yes, it's as funny as you're probably thinking. Worst (best?) part is it doesn't seem like it's trying to be. It plays everything extremely straight.

Oh, and you'll get a laugh out of the Time Traveler's motivations... So bad, I hope that part was a joke.

The book itself points out how stupid the time traveling racists are and how they failed to understand the people they were trying to manipulate.

The book is a good read but its Alternate History is not plausible even with the time travel factor.

 

[Belated]

If a Revolution breaks out, I imagine the rebels will be defeated very quickly by all of that ridiculous technology our military has been working on. Like bullet deflecting armor and drones and railguns, (oh my!). The rebels wouldn't stand a chance against all of that fancy cheating technology (Yes, cheating. We have no reason to stockpile all of this fancy tech when all we ever fight these days are impoverished brown people with rocks. The only fancy tech we've actually made much use of is drones, which are really good at killing civilians.) unless the rebels had some really powerful international allies, like China. But why would China side with the rebels? I'd think China would be more likely to side with the military because they're generally comfortable with oppressive regimes. I think Russia, however, would be more likely to aid the rebels. In a way, a revolution in our country would be fought like some kind of proxy war.

 

[SnakeoilSage]

What, exactly, would America be revolting against?

 

[ZephrC]

Except that our "two party" system only exists because people only vote for the two parties. Its not like other political parties can't run or even some day supersede the Republicans or Democrats.

Again, it all comes down to voting and campaigning. The truth is we have it VERY good in the US, I've lived in other countries, in the developing world, and people in the US have no idea what is like to live such a place. There is a reason people keep voting for the people in power. Despite all our problems things are a lot better than they could be.

The issue is that our winner-takes-all system encourages voters to not actually vote for who they want to win, but to instead vote for the 'lesser of two evils.' Our system will ALWAYS lead to a two-party system, even if one of the two parties ends up being replaced with another (which has only happened some three times ever in our nation's history).

The other issue is that the US doesn't allow for direct referendum, meaning that the first issue can never be solved without a revolution, so long as we have representative voting.

The solution is to enact a system similar to the one I'll post below, which can never happen with our two-party system without a referendum, at least not within the next 50 years at least with how uneducated our citizenry is.

This video is the most important:


I also recommend this video, the prequel to the above video:
And a couple of his other videos that explain some of the issues with most election systems, and/or alternatives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

Actually, just watch all of his videos on elections. They're fantastic.

I love those videos, but the idea of an armed revolution helping to get there just doesn't work.

As absolutely broken as the electoral system in the US is, the fact remains that whoever gets the most votes still wins. How is it you think that it would take less money, resources and power to lead an armed rebellion against the government than it takes to win an election? That just doesn't even begin to make sense.

If you ask me (you didn't, but I'm gonna answer anyway) the problem with the US is that it's too large to work as a proper representative democracy anymore. Even with a better electoral system, there are so many people, over such a large area, with so little in common that everything has to boil down to a black or white us or them choice. Without that no one could ever conceivably get anything done at a national level.

It seems to me the only real alternative to the mess we're stuck with now is peaceful secession. Which is why I support a free Cascadia.