Just out of (actual) curiosity: is the culture divide now strong enough that dissolution of the Union is a possibility? If so, why? If not, why not?
I imagine today these would be far more of a deciding power than troops.
In terms of warships, the CSA did capture and convert existing Union ships in Norfolk, Virginia (despite the Union's efforts to scuttle them as they withdrew). A good number of ironclads were also constructed or purchased from England. With the remaining being commissioned and put into operations by the CSA itself during the war. Interestingly, this also included some very early submarines, which is I think the first time they were used in warfare.
That said, the CSA was never able to effectively break the Union's naval blockades, and battles by the opposing armies were far more decisive in the war's outcome. Particularly in the strategically decisive Eastern Theater of the war.
Some may say “no, to secede you need approval and they will say no!”. Okay, but in this scenario why would states with the GDP the rest of the union relies on just ask nicely?
A Trump government threatened individual liberties everywhere and he’s vindictive enough to concentrate on blue states. Check the news today about Newsom’s special session. Plans already under way.
So what happens if he goes so far that the United States loses or jeopardizes its global dominance? The same states that voted heavily for him would be the first impacted, with massive job losses and higher costs. Coastal states and cities wouldn't be too far behind, with higher costs tempered somewhat by proximity to logistics hubs, and unemployment would be more limited due to the higher concentration of jobs. That is, until our economic dominance falters, at which point our heavily-built-up services industry is likely to fracture and collapse in on itself under the weight of competition from countries like India and China.
All of which is to say that, yes, it's a potential outcome that the United States does dissolve in some fashion, as some states seek to preserve their power and economic control even as the Federal Government loses its mind.
Now then, do I personally think this is the outcome? No, not really. We lack debt to spend frivolously on deficit financing, so there goes that easy out. The stock market is not the economy, and workers will quickly realize that when stocks skyrocket and they're all laid off 2008-style, which would be bad for those with the most to gain (billionaires and Private Equity). I still think there's enough backstops in place to prevent runaway collapse and dissolution...
...although the biggest one of all is a divided Congress. If the GOP gets a trifecta (Executive, both Legislative chambers, and SCOTUS), then there's nothing stopping the full suite of plans from being implemented post-haste, at which point the music very suddenly stops and everyone realizes how screwed we are. Our prior backstops, our allied countries, cannot be depended upon with a President that is vocally supportive of Russia and while they're dealing with their own populism issues.
All in all, my read is that while things are about to get really bad, they're not likely to be maximum bad, if that makes sense. The current world order has always been fragile post-Cold War, and this might be the time for a grand realignment. It'd be a shame to lose our dominance, but no empire lasts forever.
But Americans knew this because of Jan 6, so it's what we deserve I guess.
With now full control of the government, it is trivial for him to have the supreme court overturn the 22nd amendment and rig a third election. Absolutely trivial.
Or maybe it'll be a regular, peaceful transition of power in 4 years. But I absolutely wouldn't bet on that.
It is true that the Supreme Court has wide latitude in interpreting the Constitution. But I don't see the Court interpreting "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" in any other way than what the plain text says.
> But I don't see the Court interpreting "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice" in any other way
Simple… He wont be elected.
He’ll be appointed. Or some other word. Or elections will be suspended due to some “national emergency” and so “we’ll just continue with who we have right now in the interim”. This is not uncommon when democracies fall to authoritarianism.
The Republicans, and their courts and judges, have already amply demonstrated how disingenuous they’re willing to be.
The 14th amendment disqualifies people who have “previously taken an oath to support the Constitution.”
The Republican position is that Trump swore an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, but the word “support” was not in there so it doesn’t apply.
That being said, I can’t say how outside forces could shape things in unexpected ways. A proper WW3 with China and Russia could devastate enough of the world that countries with large immigrant populations end up the new superpowers, isolated from global conflicts and with the population for large projects, quickly. Or it might not. There’s so many potential branches when the status quo fails or is destroyed, that our only reliable sources of data come from those who lived it before us - lived through WW1 and WW2, who witnessed the Holocaust, who resisted fascism and totalitarianism from within and without.
I hope this is a crisis we manage to navigate largely peacefully, educating our masses about a better future together and form a new, achievable American Dream for them to chase. I want us to stop debating ideology in echo chambers, and instead put in the hard work of teaching, and guiding, and helping our fellow man. Pull the socialists, and the communists, and the modern economic theorists, and all the “fringe” groups out of their fortresses and into the streets, exchanging ideas with one another and formulating a real path forward that recognizes we will all have to compromise something to achieve our goal of a better, brighter, more sustainable future together.