Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure of the NAC (really long)

>Jared E Noble wrote:
>
>> Let's not go there, John...
>
>I take it this is in response to the Free Republic of Deseret remark?

Yep.  Just a few remarks & clarifications - some historical, some
futuristic.

>I look at it this way.  Mormons have tended (in the past) to be highly
>insular and higly resistant to control by "Gentiles"[1].

True enough about 'control' - insular may be extreme, but maybe not.

>They fought three wars, 1 against the US, 1 against Missouri militia,
>and once against Illinois Militia during their formative years.

Actually they never fought the Missouri militia - more like got their
collective butts handed to them in numerous mob attacks - which were
condoned by the Missouri Govt.	(The one stand-off at Haun's Mill, which
resulted in the Massacre of 30+ Mormons I will not call a war with
anyone's
militia).  FWIW, it wasn't until the 1970's (forget the actual year)
that
the 'Extermination Order' signed into law by Missouri Governor Boggs -
which basically made it legal to kill Mormons in Missouri, finally got
removed from the books.  Granted it hadn't been exercised in a long
time,
but that law is what made the Mormons move to Illinois in the first
place.

As far as Illinois, Joseph Smith was Governor of Nauvoo and in charge of
the Nauvoo Militia (and Nauvoo was the most populous city in Illinois at
the time - probably because of all the mormons.)  Again the Mobs/Militia
drove them out - there were some spurious attempts at defense, but it
was
the Mormon leaders to who pacified the mormons and made the call to
leave.

And last - there was no war against the US, per se.  People hostile to
the
Mormons back in Washington D.C. whipped up stories about the 'Mormon
Revolt' that never happened.  The US declared war on the Mormons and
sent
in the troops.	It was resolved pretty much without bloodshed.	(Thought
the US Govt did seize all the assets of the Mormons and kept them for
years)

So there have been disagreements, and even some bloodshed, but the
rumors
of War have been greatly exaggerated.

>And they shot at any non-Mormon settlers straying into Utah before the
>US Government got an appointed non-Mormon governor out there to control
>the territory (and he required a military expedition to get him into
>Utah in one piece).

I think that's a HIGHLY exaggerated distortion of the facts.  They would
defend their homes and land, but certainly did not go around
indiscriminately shooting non-mormons - regardless of who their governor
was.

>And today they essentially rule Utah as a church fief.  So if the rest
>of the country went to hell in a handbasket, the Mormons would likely
>circle the wagons and ignore the rest of the country.

Now this I can believe (and FWIW, they would take a good bit of southern
Idaho with them).  And they would probably be better prepared for it
than
any other large organization.  Those radical 'Survivalist' types have
nothing on the Mormons in terms of emergency preparation and food
storage.
Probably out-gun them though.  History has donne a pretty good job at
making them self-sufficient.

>As to digging them out, I'd rather nuke the city than try to fight
>a guerilla war in such hellish terrain with absolutely nothing of
>value as the prize--what's in Utah that anyone would want?

Well, I think that's a generally valid point about most guerilla wars -
and
I agree about the terrain.  I just don't see the US nuking their
citizens -
and if the shattered US ever get their act back together then Utah would
probably re-join.  Isolation during the Hell-in-a-handbasket period
would
probably end when things were working again.

>I don't have anything against most Mormons (the former Governor of
>Arizona who thought he had achieved Godhood and was impeached for
>embezzlement is an exception) but that's an honest call on the future
of
>Utah.	It's no more intended to be deliberately offensive than the
>references by our Trans-Atlantic cousin to the "Fudamentalist Christian
>Coalition" is intended to be derogatory to the average Christian[2].

Yeah - Jackasses in every group.  Three biggest jerks I know happen to
be
Catholic, Athiest, and Baptist, so it takes all kinds - Glad to hear you
recognize him as what he is, and not his 'group'.  Lots of things would
work better if more people could separate the two concepts.

>[1]For those not familliar with Mormon buzzwords, this is a non-Mormon,
>not a non-Jew.
>[2]Assuming said Christian is not a Pat Buchanan/Pat
>Robertson-worshiping fascist, that is (I can say this--it describes
more
>than one  of my relatives.)
>
>John M. Atkinson

Jared Noble