Part IV: Marius the Founder of a New Rome and Destroyer of the Republic

This is the third of four posts detailing the fall of the Roman Republic. The two posts felt with the Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gracchus, both of whom advanced militant populism and a disregard for constitutional precedence . The third covers the Social War, which was a result of the Senate foolishly ignoring the growing resentment of it's allies. This post will detail Gaius Marius. He fundamentally changed how Rome's military functioned, which helped prevent complete social collapse  , but who was also the first man to show how far the republic had fallen.

Gaius Marius

Gaius Marius is not very well known to many in the west despite the fact that he organized the legions into the military unit remembered in history and being the mentor of Julius Caesar, not the mention the man who first marched his army on Rome. But his career spans the end of the Gracchi tribunate to shortly after the Social War and the beginnings of the civil wars the plagued Rome for most of the 1st century B.C

Marius was a young man when Tiberius Gracchus rose to power, and subsequently was murdered,  and served in Numatia, North Central Spain during the second of the Numantine Wars. He must have carried himself well because none other Scipio Aemilianus, though you may better know him as Scipio Africanus due his victory over Carthage in the final Punic war that propelled Rome into the Mediterranean's only super power, patted young Marius on the shoulder when asked who would best succeed him as Rome's premiere general.

From the end of the Numantine Wars in 133 B.C to 120 B.C when he was elected tribune of the people, with the support of the leading conservative leader of Rome Quintus Caecilius Metellus, little is known. He ran for a local office, and lost, and then ran as a Quaestor in Rome, and lost again, however, he must have paid attention to power gained by the Gracchi brothers due to their populism, because even though he was supported by a conservative for the tribunate, he adopted a populist, which must have greatly contributed to the enmity between him and Metellus during later years. The enmity was enough to prevent Marius from aedilship and his narrow win for the praetorship in 116 B.C, and the subsequent charges of electoral corruption after his election.

His stint as praetor, Rome's equivalent to a court judge, was uneventful and in 114 B.C he was sent to Lusitania, modern day southern Portugal, to govern and clear out the highway robbers that had become a minor nuisance in the area. I assume Rome considered it a minor nuisance because even though the robbers were enough of a nuisance to warrant a pro-praetor to muster military forces, his victory wasn't grand enough to warrant a triumph.

So far, Marius' career wasn't spectacular, though his marriage to the aunt of Julius Caesar of the Julii family indicates that Marius had become respectfully wealthy and influential in Roman politics. What made Marius was Jurgutha the King of Numidia, modern day northern Algeria, and the military campaigns against him. Though it was Sulla, future rival to Marius, who captured Jurgutha, the war in Numidia would begin Marius rise to the top of Romes political elite.

The ill-will between Metellus, now Consul, and Marius must have dissipated, was overstated, or Metellus simply saw Marius for the competent military leader he was despite their rivalry, and selected Marius as his legate, an equivalent to a division X.O, for his campaign against Jurgutha. Marius used this appointment to boost his political career as he ran for the position of consul the next year, however, he did so without the support of Metellus. Some historians think it was because Marius was a novus homo (new man) and I concur with this assessment. Metellus had advised Marius to wait until Metellus' son was of age, and run with him for the consulship, however, Pius was 29 years old and would be ineligible to run for the office for another 13 years, Marius was already 49, and be 62 years old by then.

Marius campaign would signal the final break with Metellus as Marius would use Metellus' inability to stop Jurgutha as a reason why he should be elected consul and lead the legions; as well as railing against the corruption of the nobility.  This strategy, which would resemble the class warfare demagoguery we see today, had served the Gracchi brothers well, and Marius had learned well. While Marius successfully won the consulship, a major feat considering his status as a new man, the Senate tried to circumvent him by using the Lex Sempronia against him.

The Lex Sempronia, the law passed by Tiberius Gracchus, among many things, dictated which provinces would be designated as consular provinces for the following year prior to the elections of that year. The Senate used the law to their advantage by deciding not to make on of the provinces where the war was being fought against Jurgutha into a consular province, and to further rub salt in Marius wounds, to prorogue Metellus imperium in those provinces. This meant that even if Marius was elected consul, and it looked likely, he would not be able to command the legions against Jurgutha.

This move, while perfectly legal, was incredibly underhanded politically, though underhandedness had been the trait of the senate for many decades now, and probably contributed to many of the rash actions that Marius would talk in his final years. However, the senate failed in the endeavours, because Marius not only was a military genius, but also a political one as well. He used a ploy that had been successfully used for the war against Eumenes III in 131 B.C At that time a tribune had passed a law authorizing the popular election for the commander, it wasn't without precedent, as this had also been done during the second Punic war, so it was not illegal, but it was unusual. Marius successfully got a tribune to push the proposal forward, and the plebeian council to elect him as the commander of the legions against Jurgutha. There was nothing the Senate could do. This election would prove to have profound impacts of Rome's military and Rome herself.

Marius was an able general, and well loved by his men, he ate with them, bonded with them, and proved himself a soldiers soldier, unlike the many aristocratic men who often held the position of legate, tribune, or consul.  Marius understood that the way the military was organized was killing the republic. First off Rome's legions were an entirely volunteer force of Roman property owners, the middle class of Rome, and the time spent fighting was a sacrifice for these men. While they were gone only their wives and children could tend to their land, and sometimes, not even then. The never ending wars were slowly bankrupting the middle class as their ploughs would go fallow, and they would be unable to sell enough produce to pay for their land.  Too add insult to injury, their land would be repossessed and then bought up by one of the wealthy patrician families of Rome, or other Latin city.  This was contributing greatly to the violent populism that was becoming more prevalent in Rome and threatened the Republic.

The other issue is that these wars were killing Rome demographically as well.  The able bodied men of Rome were going off to war, and as in all wars, sometimes getting killed. While Rome was very successful in waging war, and because of it suffering drastically fewer casualties than their enemies, the long periods away from home, and the deaths that did occur, resulted in fewer infants being would born. As I have said before, demographics is destiny, and the lack of infants being born, for the middle class at least meant that there were eligible men to fill the ranks down the road. This had been going on for some time and it was reaching a breaking point. It was becoming increasingly more difficult for the Romans to muster the forces they needed, which meant they were increasingly relying on their allies; and that helped contribute to growing allied resentment that would later lead to the Social War.

Marius may have seen that particular threat, though it is more likely he was worried about incursions from the barbarians to the north of the Italian Alps, and made some drastic decisions that would fundamentally alter Romes military, what we now know as the Marian Reforms. He relaxed the requirements that would make a man eligible for military service by removing the stipulation that a man must own land and allowing men regardless of their social class enlist.

Moreover, Marius eliminated the levy, and instead recruited individuals to fill his ranks. This would have a momentous change on Rome, as rather than having a conscripted service of individuals who would serve for a short period, the ranks of the legions would be filled with career soldiers. There were many benefits to Marius' move such as bolstering the ranks of the legions and increasing Romanization of conquered provinces, however, there were numerous pitfalls that would become painfully evident during the civil war years. The legions had formerly been filled by the ranks of the middle class who served the republic out of duty, and once the campaign was over, would return home to their homes or newly won lands. Now the legions would be filled with the unemployed and poorer classes who would fight for coin, and more importantly, whoever provided said coin.

While the long term implications of such a decision would become painfully evident during the first civil war between Marius and his supporters against Sulla, who served as a Quaestor for Marius, later in the short term Marius provided the shot in the arm the legions desperately needed and a temporary outlet for the mounting social unrest that rampant unemployment was having on Rome.

Marius was unsuccessful in completely defeating or capturing Jurgatha, Sulla would have that honor, Marius, as consul receive the credit and this credit would help propel him to an unprecedented consecutive term as consul. Much like Tiberius' and Gaius' moves towards a consecutive tribunalship, Marius' second term was unprecedented, and unconstitutional. But unlike the Gracchi brothers, Marius did not actively campaign. Marius was elected in absentia, he was still off campaigning, and this meant that the Senatorial body violated it's own constitution due to issues with the barbarians to the north.

This is an important event because even though Marius may have been the only consul able to handle Cimbri, who had defeated two Roman lead armies against them, there were well established ways to extend the military command of Marius, specifically the prorogue, but the Senate instead opted to reelect the man as consul. This signifies how far the Senate has fallen, they set aside their laws for expediency, and this resulted in Marius being elected consul a total of 6 times, something never before seen in the republic, and signifies what is to come in the future.

There is a lot more to write about Marius, after all he is the destroyer of the republic, however, this ties into the next post, the rise of the Sulla, who becomes dictator of Rome largely due to Marius. After the Social war, the rivalry between the two men will flare into open warfare, and so too, does the decline of Rome accelerate.

Part III: The Social War

Individuals who follow my blog know that I spend a lot of time comparing the United States to Rome, specifically the Rome of the late republic.  The reason why I do so is because I do see a lot of similarities between the two polities, politically and culturally. Late republic Rome had to deal with it's new found position as the biggest power in the Mediterranean and growing internal strain due to inequality, lack of opportunity, growing entitlements, and abuse of their constitutional system, all leading to a series of crises that helped lead to the end of the republic.

Currently America finds itself in a rare position of near unchallenged power and growing internal issues are starting to tear apart the traditional fabric that lead America to be a great, and more importantly, free nation.  Previously wrote about Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, and how their attempts at addressing some reason social issues that troubled Rome, by running roughshod over their constitution, had long term ramifications that lead to the ultimate downfall of the republic.  The Social war is one of these long term items I refer too, though the point is relatively minor.

Now, the Social war is perhaps one of the events that bears the least similarity to the United States as it stands now. I cannot think of anything approximating the social war that we have gone through in the last century, or will about to go through in the near future. An event like the Social War today would have to entail that America's allies wage a war against the United States with the end goal of obtaining citizenship. This isn't going to happen, largely because our alliance structure as it stands now is more beneficial to our allies than the Romans alliance structure was for theirs around that time.

I mention the social war, because I do think the actions of Tiberius and Gaius do relate, however minutely, but more importantly, it is a great example of what happens when a known problem is ignored until it becomes critical. Tiberius had campaigned for allied citizenship back in 133 B.C and the Social War didn't break out until 91 B.C, which means the Romans knew of this problem for at least four decades, and quiet possibly longer, but failed to address this issue. In short, the Social War was an entirely unnecessary war, thousands dies that need not of died, and this war was the impetus for the civil wars between Marius and Sulla.  There is no guarantee that the Republic would not have collapsed if it were not for this war, I think the Republics eventual demise was a given after the Gracchi brothers, but the war was the first noticeably large brick that fell out of the foundation of Rome. And that is why I feel compelled to write about it, because it serves as a stark reminder for the living today the potentially dire consequences that can be reaped when we ignore what we sow.

Before I continue I, once again, recommend that you go to this thehistoryofrome.com and listen to this podcast about the Social War.  It's a good podcast to listen too if your doing some menial task work.  Now onto the rest of the blog itself, there is a lot that plays into the Social War that I won't cover, such as the distribution of colonies and what happened with Roman versus non-Roman colonies, but that could a very long time. I am going to try to keep this blog post as streamlined as possible.

The catalyst for the Social War was the assassination of populist tribune Marcus Livius Drusus the younger, who had attempted to address Romans allies growing discontent with the current political order by trying to get citizenship extended to them. This is interesting for two reasons, one, his father was elected as a tribune to the people, by members of the conservative party, in order to stymie Gaius Gracchus. His son was a populist and had enjoyed some success securing greater participation of the wealthy plebeians, the equestrians, into the political system.  His downfall came when he tried to press his luck and address an issue that was beginning to boil over. And this is where the second interesting point comes in, Drusus was partially responsible for the death of Gaius by the mob, and Tiberius was responsible for the breaking of the personal sanctity of the Tribune, by having his supporters forcibly remove a rival tribune. Both these instances are seen when Marcus Drusus, whose body is sacred as long he is a tribune, is stabbed by an unknown assailant and died.

However, unlike Gaius, where the mob was instrumental in his death, it is most likely that a paid assassin from one of the conservatives senators was responsible. The reasons for the assassination stem from reports, though solid unbiased information from this period is difficult to find, that some of the senators had found out that Drusus had made agreements with the Italian allies. The allies would become his patrons in exchange for his pushing through a citizenship bill. If this were true then it would have made Drusus a very powerful man, the most powerful man in Rome. On the flip side, others have said that Drusus was simply trying to include more wealthy Italian patricians, which would have shifted the balance of power back to the Senate and away from the demagogue Tribunes that had come into being with the rise of the Gracchi brothers.

The sins of Tiberius and Gaius had come full circle, now even the senators were blatantly ignoring the laws set down by their countries constitution, and like Gods punishment on Cain for his fratricide, the Social War was the punishment meted out for the breaking of their cities covenant.  For a long time the allies of Rome had become increasingly restless, and it was Drusus alone, who promised enfranchisement, that kept them at bay.

The allies were part of a confederation, with Rome at it's head, that was something not quiet as strong as a federation of states into a nation and not quiet as week as a military alliance, like NATO today. Essentially, it was a hegemonic relationship with Rome. Roman allies would be guaranteed protection by Rome in exchange for letting Rome dictate foreign policy while still maintaining sovereignty domestically. Additionally, during military campaigns, Roman allies would make up half of all the military units mustered, with the other half being comprised of Roman citizens and the spoils of war would be shared equally.

Italians benefited from this arrangement since the enjoyed protection from foreign aggression from Rome, their individual military burden was lessened, and they maintained their sovereignty, at least domestically. For the Romans, it ensured that they wouldn't have to worry about being attacked by their neighbors, their military force would be supplemented so it lowered their own individual burden, and they got to dictate when and were the forces would fight.  This set up lasted for hundreds of years, and even Hannibal was unable to get Romes allies to break ranks during his invasion.

However, with the land crisis of the mid to late 2nd century BC, and growing corruption by the senatorial class, began to change all this.  Other Italian and Latin cities had the same sociological make up as the Romans, with their own patricians and plebeians. For the Italian patricians, even though they did not enjoy say in policy of Rome, they benefited from the arraignment. Yes, many were frustrated that Roman patricians were increasingly taking a greater share of the spoils of war, however, they also benefited from the growing impoverishment of plebeians, and were able to also acquire tracts of land as well.  They were second class citizens, but they benefited from the arraignment since their interests were largely the same as the patrician Romans. Gaius and Tiberius changed all that.

The land reforms implemented saw the lands of the Italian patricians being confiscated and given away to Roman plebeians. This was a grave insult to the patricians, and it reminded them, that yes, they were patricians like the Romans, but they were second class citizens. The dregs of Rome mattered more than the gentry folk of non-Roman citizens. This had effectively started to regionalize the alliance, and regional differences are often the seeds of civil war.

It is telling though, that it took almost forty years for war to break out, the political leaders of the allied cities did not want to fight Rome, they felt that alliance with Rome served their best interest, but they increasingly viewed the situation as intolerable. It was only when political options had been completely exhausted, in the eyes of the allies, that war was considered. It is also a testament of the stupidity of the elected leaders of Rome, there was no reason why this war couldn't have been prevented, but the leaders of Rome continued to stick their heads in ground and tell themselves that if it hadn't happened in 133 B.C then it wouldn't in 123 B.C, then 113 BC, and finally, in 91 B.C it finally did. This should serve a stark reminder to us, because our politicians are doing exactly what the patrician senators did in regards to our national debt and growing socialism.  It may take half a century or more for the ills of ignoring poor policy to be felt, but eventually they will be felt.

After the assassination of Drusus the younger the Italian allies formed their own confederation, complete with a capital city, Corfinium, their own senate, consul, praetors, quaestors, and magistrates. It was just like the Roman confederation, save that Rome wasn't a part of it.  Both the allies and Rome knew this couldn't be solved peaceably, so they mustered their legions. However, at this point, fully 60% of Romes legions had been made up of allied soldiers.  Rome was severely understrengthed for the fight ahead.

At first war went very poorly. Rome faced enemies to the north and south, and a much smaller military force than it had historically commanded. Consul P. Rutilius was defeated in several engagements up north, until he was finally killed in battle, which prompted Marius, who I will write about later, to come out fo self exile and campaign in the north.  In the south, several towns were captured and sacked by the Italians until Lucius Julius Caesar, father of Gaius Julius Caesar, was able to defeat the Italians in a crucial battle.

It had become all too clear to the Caesar at this point that the resolution of the allied conflict was impossible with out granting citizenship.  There were simply too many cities for Rome to hold down by military force, and revolts would continue to break out, weakening Rome in the Mediterranean, and possibly leaving it vulnerable to a new power in the future.  With this in mind, Lucius Julius Caesar proposed the Lex Julia, which granted citizenship to any Italian who was not in revolt, and also to any allied city that immediately put down their arms.  For most Italians, this was exactly what they had fought for, so they put down their arms and swore allegiance to Rome. Nevertheless, a few formerly allied cities, held out and continued their war. And a war that was already interesting, becomes even more so, because it is in these final years of the Social War that you begin to see the seeds of conflict between Sulla and Marius as well as the rise of Pompey clan.

Lucius Julius Caesars time as consul was over and Sulla had returned from praetorship and was granted command in the south. Instead of picking Marius to lead the armies, as he had made many enemies in the Senate, they one of his opponents Caepio, for the command in the north. Caepio was killed in battle, but Marius was slighted again, when Pompeius, father of Pompey the Great, was picked to lead the Roman armies.  This wounded Marius pride greatly, and it was became worse when Sulla, victorious in his campaign down south and formally ending the Social War, was elected to a consulship.

The Social War is the last time that Rome, and her various factions, are unified as one people..I mark the end of the republic, in regards to the Roman constitution, with the tribuneships of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.  Marius and Sulla mark the end of the republic as a political entity governed by the senate.  The next few decades will see bloody purges, civil wars, the first triumvirate, the second triumvirate, and finally Augustus.  Less than 60 years later, the republic had completely consumed itself. August, learning from the murder of his uncle, and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, would rule discreetly and behind the scenes, keeping the charade of the republic alive.  But the republic by that time was well and truly dead.

There is no indication that this would not have eventually happened to Rome even if they had avoided the Social War.  A growing class of plebeians dependent on the patronage of wealthy patricians for sustenance would have eventually resulted in a man powerful enough to try and grab the reigns of the most powerful nation in the ancient world, he only needed the ambition.  But the Social War certainly exacerbated the problem.  What probably would have been a slow decline of the republic, ended up ending quiet rapidly. Caesar was a boy when the Social Wars had started, and the Senate still a viable, if horribly corrupt, governing entity.  By the time he crossed the Rubicon 41 years later, the senate had become completely impotent.

Next in the series of the decline of the Republic, Marius and Sulla, bloody purges, and civil wars.

Secession: Either America Stands Free and United. or Freedom is Doomed to Fail.

A post by the Capain's Blog, and on Save Capitalism, has prompted me to do a post on secession.  The talk of secession from, or partition of, the United States has been thrown around on the internet, and now that it has come up again I feel compelled to give my opinion on the matter.

One thing that I cannot make all too clear is that either secession from, or partitioning of, America would be a catastrophic event with few, in my opinion no, upsides. The United States is a continental entity, much like the Roman Empire was two thousands years ago, and the dissolution of the union would have catastrophic consequences for the continent.  If the United States fragmented into numerous polities it would have the effect of Europanizing then continent.

Here is the Roman Empire at its height between the 2nd and 3rd centuries. No fewer than two dozen nations were either entirely, or partially, encompassed in the most powerful, and prosperous, polity the western world had ever seen.  Now, the Western Roman Empire's demise is hard to actually pinpoint, we pick 476 AD for the sake of convenience, but documents can be found as late as the 6th century referring to the Western Roman Empire, and you could make a case that the empire had effectively ceased once the two were split between east and west.  But to avoid making things too difficult let us go with the date of 476 AD as the date that Rome ceased to be.  Here is a map of Europe not even 200 years after the fall.

As you can see, Europe is now a series of feuding petty kingdoms, each fighting for the scrapes of what remains of the riches of a once great empire.  One thing that you will learn if you ever become a student of realpolitik is that nations are either, formed from a group of homogeneous individual or, by geographic boundaries.

Stable nations will have a large homogeneous population and borders anchored to geographic regions that help protect their integrity.  If one of those conditions is not met then instability can, though as the US and Canada have shown not always, ensue.  Nations will act to counter that instability either by changing their demographics or expanding their borders.

If you look at this link and move through the centuries. You will notice that many 'nations' didn't achieve borders similar to their modern ones for almost 500 to 800 years after the 'fall' of Rome, for England, Portugal, Spain, Scotland, and France. And that the to and fro of adjusting borders didn't cease until the modern age.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of wars were fought, countless millions of lives lost, and to this day the geographic fallout of the fall of Rome haven't fully ceased, just look at the conflicts in the Balkans.

If the US collapses, how would the American continent end up being any different from Europe? The simple, and correct, answer is that there is no indication that this wouldn't happen.  I invite you to look back at the map of the Roman Empire at its height, were the provincial boundaries are shown in dark red lines, and you will notice, that outside of Italy, that there isn't a provincial boundary that confirms to the boarders of a modern state.

The reason for this is that administrative boundaries are created for entirely different reason than national ones. An administrator may want to draw boundaries that will create a province, state, or dominion that will have a variety of resources, e.g the American states, or that will help prevent a base of people from successfully rebelling, e.g Rome. Or if you want a modern day example just look at the European partitioning of Africa. How stable are those nations now that the European powers are no longer there? Not very. If the United States collapses, or even if states secede, there is no guarantee that the boundaries you see now while the states are administrative entities within a nation are the same ones you would see after secession or collapse. Assuming that we had a partition along political lines, red versus blue, if you look at the election results by county you will see just how different the political environment is within states.

But even ignoring that just look a the geographic map of the United States with an overlay of the states boundaries.

There are many states, particularly west of Mississippi that have boundaries that are either all, or in part, that are not anchored by any major geographic feature.  This is a great source of instability, and if you don't believe me then read about the Northern European plain, which is one of the reasons why Germany wanted to annex parts of Poland.  National polities will try to anchor themselves with boarders that help protect their integrity.

We now have to consider the role demographics plays in all this.  Here is a map showing the largest demographic in each given county:

Green is obviously caucasian, orange hispanic, blue african, and purple tribal.  The way the coloring works is that the largest racial group, it could be a plurality, is colored and the darker the color the higher percentage of the county is made up of that race.

Non Hispanic Caucasian

Hispanic Caucasian

African

Asian

Now I am not a race realist, however, I won't dismiss things out of hand just because I don't agree with it. I am a culture realist, and I do believe that some cultures are better than other and that this idea of a multicultural nation, where all cultures are considered equal, is fundamentally unstable.  The US has historically done a tremendous job integrating culturally different individual into the dominant culture of the United States.  But the last few decades the intellectual, political, and even cultural leaders of our country have turned against the melting pot concept and forwarded a salad bowl idea.

This idea is inherently destabilizing. Once again I must stress this is not a racial idea, but a cultural one, remember that Hispanics are racially Caucasian   And eventually the democrats will find that their minority party will fracture as different groups will have different ideas. Catholics used to overwhelmingly vote for the democrats, and now vote for the republicans. Blacks used to vote for republicans, and now they vote for democrats.

I don't think you'll find many individuals. if they are honest, that won't admit that the US will probably experience some cultural, ethnic, and racial tension. The US has had at least a dozen major racial riots since 1980.

Video 1

Video 2

The fact that a vast majority of people in this country don't want to harm anyone, regardless of their race, doesn't matter. There are a few individuals that do hate others based off of skin color, or ethnicity, and would commit grievous bodily harm, or worse, if the opportunity arose. And that is all it take to set off a spiraling cycle of violence because I promise you the Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/African person that is pulled from their care and beaten by a Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/African mob will forever distrust, and probably hate, Caucasian/Asian/Hispanic/Africa people because of what happened to them.  That is how system infighting and violence start. It wasn't as if the Irish Catholics and Protestants, or the Sunni and Shia decided one day that they would enjoy killing each other. If racial tensions got bad enough that difference racial groups tried to cleanse their homes of different races, and history is full of these types of instances, then what will happen in an area like San Francisco?

There are those who argue that partitioning of the US or secession could be done peacefully,via democratic means, much like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand leaving the Dominion of Great Britain.  But examples of these are few and far between.

Brazil: Two states seceded from Brazil in 1835 which resulted in the War of the Farrapos the ended in Brazil putting down the rebellion.

Federal Republic of  Central America: A union of the modern day Latin republics of Guatemala, El Salvador  Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Los Altos (which is now the Mexican state of Chiapas ). The Federated Republic was created after the secession of the southern portions of the first Mexican Empire but quickly dissolved into a bloody civil war themselves.

Congo: The state of Katanga declared independence from the Democratic Republic of Congo. The independence movement was put down with military force, though what makes it real interesting was that it was the United Nations that put it down with Operation Grand Slam.

Gran Colombia: What is now the Republics of Panama, Columbia, Venezuela, and Ecuador. The Republic was founded by Simon Bolivar in 1819 and during the entire period of its existence there were frequent insurrections and infighting. The Gran Columbia Republic was no more by 1840.

Mexico: Has had three secession movements in its history, not including the first Mexican Empire. First there was Texas, that succeeded because of U.S involvement. Then there was the Republic of the Rio Grande in 1840, which didn't even make it through the end of the year.  Lastly there was the Republic of Yucatan, also established in 1840. And unlike the Rio Grande republic, it managed to last for eight years despite embargo and invasions by the Mexican government, and some of the officials may have even briefly considered being annexed by the United States. However in the end the Republic of Yucatan crumbled and was absorbed back into Mexico.

Nigeria: a portion of Nigeria seceded and established the Republic of Biafra. The nation of Nigeria descended into civil war and the Nigerian government, with help from the United States and her allies, put an end to the Republic a scant three years after it had been established.

There are many more examples I could bring forward, but I want to focus on one last one.  And that was the partitioning of India.  The partitioning of India, into Muslim Pakistan and Hindi India, was overseen by the British Empire.  Read the history and accounts of why it was done, and what happened before, during, and after the event, and you will realize the terrible danger that inherently lies with partitioning.

The partition was democratically achieved and with the oversight of a, admittedly ailing, Imperial power that had vast experience of running an empire and the organizational ability to conduct such a massive undertaking of redrawing boundaries and moving millions of people according to those boundaries.  Yet despite Great Britain acting as a third party moderator, the partition ended up becoming a very bloody affair with an estimated number death toll of between 500,000 to over a 1,000,000 individuals. Some of these deaths were the result in the two nations inability to handle mass migrations, however, there were many instances of large scale slaughter of both sides. Moreover the partition left the boarder situation between Pakistan and India unresolved, which has resulted in numerous wars between the to nations and an eventual nuclear arms build up between the two.  60 years later that Indian subcontinent is still dealing with the after affects of the partition, thousands if not millions have lost their lives because of partitioning.

If we were going to try to partition off the nation, based on our ideological leanings, it would be far harder to do so than the Indian Partition was. Here is a map America based on the 2012 election results by state.

Many can already see how partitioning based off of this geopolitical set up wouldn't work.  The progressive leaning states would never allow it. They would effectively be torn asunder and as I have mentioned before, the red states would control the most important river, essentially the fountainhead of what drives American global power, on the continent. There is absolutely no way the current government would allow this to happen, and it is a pipe dream to think otherwise.  War would result, and it would be very bloody, the northern states refused to allow the southern states to cede, because of the importance of the Mississippi, back in 1861 and I very much doubt that they would allow it to happen in the 21st century.  But this map alone is misleading. This map is more accurate.

As we can see there are liberal and conservative leanings throughout the country, and if we were to partition the states off what could we assume would happen?  The answer is massive migration. Even if a single percent of the American population decided that they would travel to the new nation that better fit their ideological life view, it would mean millions of Americans migrating all over the country.  This is the most important thing people forget when they talk about secession. In 1860 the divide was very much geographical, north versus south, in 2012 it is not so the geography of the states were the divide lies, our electoral map distorts the reality of the situation, it is an urban versus rural divide.

What does this mean? It means that simply lopping off states to make new nations will not work, as it does not reflect the reality of the situation on the ground.  It isn't Midwestern states versus the coastal states, it is the rural folk against the urban folk, with the suburbanites in between. The facts presented should make one thing very clear, peaceful partitioning is almost an impossibly. Even if local governments don't fight because of racial demographics, geographic borders and location, or because of resources, which the red states have most of that is easily accessible (see gas production below), there will be the violence that comes with massive migrations of people from one place to another.

 And what if there was a successful secession movement, or partitioning, of what is now the United States? After fighting off the US, or some other state military assuming absolute dissolution of the Union, what happens afterwards?  History has an abundance of examples of the aftermath of rebellions and secession movements, and the result isn't pretty. More often than not the government that replaces the one overthrown is usually worse. One also only need look at Russia and see that it is not always the popular ideology that wins out in the political arena. The Marxists didn't take over Russia because they were he most popular, or inherently true, ideology with the revolutionaries, no, they won because they were the most organized and ruthless. When you seek change at the end of a rifle, it should come as no surprised that those who are most predisposed of using violence to achieve their ends are the ones most likely to rule.

Lastly, let us assume that, not only do we have a successful partitioning or secession, and we are able to establish a new government that followed constitutional ideals, what happens next? Is that the end of the political problems in America? Progressive states would continue their Utopian economic slide while conservative states, with their new adherence to the constitution, thrive? Doubtful. What assumes that the new conservative leaning nation wouldn't be inundated with a flood of progressive leaving their economically declining nations, which is exactly what they are doing now, to economically prosperous ones?  Moreover what is to assume that our descendants will not travel upon the same path we have? It is a mistake to assume that just because a nation is smaller that the second time around would be any different.

And that is the thing most people need to be cognizant of, that things wouldn't be any different. The same conditions that caused America's gradual acceptance of statist principals would still be there.  Just because you segregate the liberal Americans, who have come to accept the ideology of statism, from conservative Americans, who are only slightly less likely to want the state run their lives, doesn't mean you have solved the problem, much like the Roman empire partitioning itself into two empires, you have only bought some time.

If America as it is now cannot survive, united and free, then it is an absolute fantasy to assume that a new attempt will work. Empirical evidence will have been presented that shows a free society can only exist for a short time before it self destructs. If the American experiment fails, and if the nation falls apart or succumbs to statism, then we should just give up on the idea of ever achieving liberty, because it won't exist for more than a few generations. Partitioning off parts of the country would only delay the inevitable. Either America stands, or freedom falls, take your pick.