American Civil War II: Is It Coming?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

They are flying Trump flags. They seem to think there is some sort of connection to faraway Washington D.C.

(Or anti-Trump flags/signs/whatever.)

I'm sure they think there's a connection. But look at what they're actually complaining about/asking for/attacking: Local government. Local policies. Local police.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I'm sure they think there's a connection. But look at what they're actually complaining about/asking for/attacking: Local government. Local policies. Local police.

Yes, local. But that's because law enforcement is locally controlled, not nationally. But that doesn't mean that Trump is not exacerbating the problem with his inflammatory rhetoric. Look at what happened in Portland. Those men who drove their trucks into Portland on Saturday to deliberately provoke BLM protesters were there because of TRUMP. "This rally is not a protest,” Alex Kyzik, an organizer, told the crowd, according to the Oregonian/Oregonlive.com. “This rally is a celebration of a great president.” But you do NOT take paint ball guns and toxic sprays into a 'celebration'; you take them when you want confrontation.

[carlitos]

:

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Yes, local. But that's because law enforcement is locally controlled, not nationally. But that doesn't mean that Trump is not exacerbating the problem with his inflammatory rhetoric. Look at what happened in Portland. Those men who drove their trucks into Portland on Saturday to deliberately provoke BLM protesters were there because of TRUMP. "This rally is not a protest,” Alex Kyzik, an organizer, told the crowd, according to the Oregonian/Oregonlive.com. “This rally is a celebration of a great president.” But you do NOT take paint ball guns and toxic sprays into a 'celebration'; you take them when you want confrontation.

Portland has had nightly violence for over three months now. Most of it has been protestors clashing with local government about local government. It's been largely the same pattern in other cities where this is happening. Portland protestors didn't trap people in a building and try to set it on fire because of Trump's inflammatory rhetoric.

And the people who occupied the mayor's home this weekend didn't say boo about your pet rally. They were there for the mayor's resignation, the abolition of the local police, and more funds for their preferred social services.

(One wonders what their plan for right-wing counter-protestors will be, if they succeed in abolishing the police.)

[Myriad]

I won't say a new American Civil War is coming, but Ken Burns is camping out in D.C. on the Capitol lawn with a notebook and a video recorder.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Portland has had nightly violence for over three months now. Most of it has been protestors clashing with local government about local government. It's been largely the same pattern in other cities where this is happening. Portland protestors didn't trap people in a building and try to set it on fire because of Trump's inflammatory rhetoric.

And the people who occupied the mayor's home this weekend didn't say boo about your pet rally. They were there for the mayor's resignation, the abolition of the local police, and more funds for their preferred social services.

(One wonders what their plan for right-wing counter-protestors will be, if they succeed in abolishing the police.)

Did I say it was ALL Trump's fault? HINT: No, I did not. I said he is exacerbating the problem. He is fanning the flames. Do you deny that?

As for this great takeover of Wheeler's home (it was the lobby of his apartment building) there were FOUR people.

"...people who occupied the mayor's home this weekend didn't say boo about your pet rally."

What the hell does 'your pet rally' mean?

Besides showing video of the pro-Trump caravan, there was quite the discussion of it on the RisingTide twitter feed which is the group behind the sit-in at Wheeler's apartment building.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Myriad

I won't say a new American Civil War is coming, but Ken Burns is camping out in D.C. on the Capitol lawn with a notebook and a video recorder.

Can't wait for the historical reenactments and the Chess Set from the Franklin Mint.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Can't wait for the historical reenactments and the Chess Set from the Franklin Mint.

How many dimensions will it have?

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

How many dimensions will it have?

The Left pieces will be forced to play 36 moves ahead in 3D while the Right pieces will just have a single button that flips the board over.

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Can't wait for the historical reenactments and the Chess Set from the Franklin Mint.

Hmm, and they just knocked down the buildings that once housed the Franklin Mint.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by kookbreaker

Hmm, and they just knocked down the buildings that once housed the Franklin Mint.

"You see it's like poetry, it rhymes." - George Lucas.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The Left pieces will be forced to play 36 moves ahead in 3D while the Right pieces will just have a single button that flips the board over.

Brilliant!

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The Left pieces will be forced to play 36 moves ahead in 3D while the Right pieces will just have a single button that flips the board over.

With a sound effect of a toddler throwing a tantrum!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Did I say it was ALL Trump's fault? HINT: No, I did not. I said he is exacerbating the problem. He is fanning the flames. Do you deny that?

As for this great takeover of Wheeler's home (it was the lobby of his apartment building) there were FOUR people.

"...people who occupied the mayor's home this weekend didn't say boo about your pet rally."

What the hell does 'your pet rally' mean?

Besides showing video of the pro-Trump caravan, there was quite the discussion of it on the RisingTide twitter feed which is the group behind the sit-in at Wheeler's apartment building.

Hmmm... I see what you're saying. I'll reconsider. Feel free to have the last word on this one, if you think it needs it.

[Polaris]

Originally Posted by Bikewer

Seems to me that if we step back a few paces from the few localized conflict areas, we’d see that the vast majority of the country is not experiencing these disturbances.

We are tempted to look at the worst-case stuff and extrapolate, but sometimes that extrapolation is not justified.

While that would be nice, the weaponization of social media makes it near impossible to tone things down. There's no shortage of paranoid rural folks who are convinced that Antifa and BLM are going to come to their little town to riot and loot (because to them protestors = looters, with encouragement from right wing media). And they're heavily armed.

Maybe they don't join Y'All Qaida by driving a giant MAGA truck to Portland, but when small protests have been held in those small towns they've been met lately by armed right wing goons spoiling for a fight - and then after it's all over the latter gets to crow on Twitter that they "defended their freedom!" or W'everTF.

[rockinkt]

Most people are idiots who turn to base violent actions when their emotions run high. Self control and self discipline are very rare.
People riot and kill over sporting matches. They don't need firearms. They just need the anonymity that large groups give.
Civil war after the next US election? I would suggest civil unrest and violence no matter who wins the election with each side claiming the higher moral ground.

[Mader Levap]

I choose "American Civil War II is coming in the foreseeable future, but not for at least a decade or so". Even if Biden wins, rotting of USA won't stop (let alone reverse), it will just slowdown somewhat.
This election is basically voting on "do you want rot to slow down or to accelerate significantly?" (from already accelerated state originated from Trump's 2016 win).

So hot civil war redux (cold version is already ongoing with violent flares here and there) is inevitable, though it will be done in very different manner than first civil war.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

So hot civil war redux (cold version is already ongoing with violent flares here and there) is inevitable, though it will be done in very different manner than first civil war.

This is the part that interests me the most. I think I have a good idea of how the first civil war was done: Several state governments decided they didn't like the direction federal policy was going. They felt they had more in common with each other than with the other states, so they declared independence, formed their own Union, established their own government, and went about setting up collective security and trying to start their international trade and diplomacy game. But the feds wouldn't let them take over federal facilities within their borders, or even recognize them as an independent polity. Then the shooting started, and since the states effectively had their own armies, and the two sides were more or less evenly matched, it promptly escalated into a full-blown war of secession.

I have no idea at all how such a civil war would be done today, or even if something could be done today that would justify using the term at all.

What manner do you think it would be done in, today?

[Safe-Keeper]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

This election is basically voting on "do you want rot to slow down or to accelerate significantly?" (from already accelerated state originated from Trump's 2016 win).

I also firmly believe it's for all intents and purposes a referendum on American democracy. Judging by the damage Trump's done already, I genuenly believe one more term will be a death blow to freedom in America.

[rockinkt]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I also firmly believe it's for all intents and purposes a referendum on American democracy. Judging by the damage Trump's done already, I genuenly believe one more term will be a death blow to freedom in America.

Notwithstanding that Trump is the worst president in American history - could you please define what you mean by "freedom" and the specific way that Trump has damaged it or will if elected again?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by theprestige

This is the part that interests me the most. I think I have a good idea of how the first civil war was done: Several state governments decided they didn't like the direction federal policy was going. They felt they had more in common with each other than with the other states, so they declared independence, formed their own Union, established their own government, and went about setting up collective security and trying to start their international trade and diplomacy game. But the feds wouldn't let them take over federal facilities within their borders, or even recognize them as an independent polity. Then the shooting started, and since the states effectively had their own armies, and the two sides were more or less evenly matched, it promptly escalated into a full-blown war of secession.

I have no idea at all how such a civil war would be done today, or even if something could be done today that would justify using the term at all.

What manner do you think it would be done in, today?

I feel quite certain that the liberals around here are not proposing secession; after all, that would be treason.

[Craig4]

I expect conflict short of war but it will still be conflict between the pro America faction and the Trump-trash. It won't matter. Neither side will be able to change the results of the Electoral College. However, in heavy blue states with a large disloyal minority like Oregon, Michigan and California, I expect a good deal of conflict between the two groups with police and perhaps National Guard troops keeping them separate. It will be a rough go until the middle of January when the new term starts.

[Stacyhs]

If the South wanted to follow a legal path of separating from the US, frankly, I'm not so sure I'd oppose that. In some ways, I think we'd both be better off. New England and the West Coast have more in common with each other than with the South. The problem would be the states in-between. Some would want to go with the one side, others with the other side. It would be like a patchwork quilt.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like now if the Confederacy had succeeded. The Peculiar Institution would have ended eventually with the rise of industrialization and as slavery became economically less feasible. Sort of a Southern Man in the High Castle scenario.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

If the South wanted to follow a legal path of separating from the US, frankly, I'm not so sure I'd oppose that. In some ways, I think we'd both be better off. New England and the West Coast have more in common with each other than with the South. The problem would be the states in-between. Some would want to go with the one side, others with the other side. It would be like a patchwork quilt.

Sometimes I wonder what it would be like now if the Confederacy had succeeded. The Peculiar Institution would have ended eventually with the rise of industrialization and as slavery became economically less feasible. Sort of a Southern Man in the High Castle scenario.

You assume the slavers would have freely given up their "riches". More likely, they'd have continued to attack other countries as the Fire-Eaters advocated, and as southern states did beginning in the 1850s with Narciso Lopez.

[fishbob]

Civil - not at all.
Why I have already been called a socialist after pointing out that at least one of Trump's parents was obviously a lizard.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

You assume the slavers would have freely given up their "riches". More likely, they'd have continued to attack other countries as the Fire-Eaters advocated, and as southern states did beginning in the 1850s with Narciso Lopez.

They'd have given up the economic burdens of slavery once it was no longer profitable. As I said, with the Industrial Revolution, the economics of slavery would have change. Look at farming today. So much of it is done by machinery and human labor is only needed at certain times of the year. It was costly to care for and support slaves all year long. Slavery would have died out in time even if the South had won the war.

ETA: Ah...I misread...you said "slavers" meaning those who bought and sold slaves outside the US. I'm talking about slavery in the South. It was already illegal to import slaves into the US by the time of the Civil War but I'm sure you know that.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Well, yes and no. There were frequent rifts in the Confederacy when slave-consuming states wanted to import more slaves (cheaper than US-born) and slave producing states wanted to maintain their monopoly.

[Venom]

Originally Posted by fishbob

Civil - not at all.
Why I have already been called a socialist after pointing out that at least one of Trump's parents was obviously a lizard.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[crescent]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

They'd have given up the economic burdens of slavery once it was no longer profitable. As I said, with the Industrial Revolution, the economics of slavery would have change. Look at farming today. So much of it is done by machinery and human labor is only needed at certain times of the year. It was costly to care for and support slaves all year long. Slavery would have died out in time even if the South had won the war.

ETA: Ah...I misread...you said "slavers" meaning those who bought and sold slaves outside the US. I'm talking about slavery in the South. It was already illegal to import slaves into the US by the time of the Civil War but I'm sure you know that.

Narciso Lopez was "filibustering" which had a completely different meaning now than it did then. They were attacking various places with the goal of setting up nations with legalized slavery to ally with the Southern U.S.

See also William Walker, who led efforts to occupy parts of Baja California and Nicaragua, legalizing slavery both times.

Quote:

Walker then conceived the idea of conquering vast regions of Central America and creating new slave states to join those already part of the Union.[10] These campaigns were known as filibustering, or freebooting.

Quote:

On October 15, 1853, Walker set out with forty-five men to conquer the Mexican territories of Baja California Territory and Sonora State. He succeeded in capturing La Paz, the capital of sparsely populated Baja California, which he declared the capital of a new "Republic of Lower California", with himself as president and his former law partner, Henry P. Watkins,[16] as vice president. Walker then put the region under the laws of the American state of Louisiana, which made slavery legal.[16]

Quote:

On October 13, he conquered Granada and took effective control of the country (Nicaragua). .... On 22 September, Walker repealed Nicaraguan laws prohibiting slavery, in an attempt to gain support from the Southern states.[7]

That does not seem like an economic system that was fading away. People from what would be the Confederacy were actively attacking other nations in order to re-legalize slavery, spreading the Southern American slave-based economic system. Although it is may be true that it could have died out on its own, the conscious deliberate efforts to spread the system suggest it had strong economic and cultural support, such that it would not have gone slowly nor quietly. Based on Southern actions and actors like Walker, an independent South would have pushed to spread and maintain the slave-based economic system outside to other nations by force, and would have maintained some version of the system for as long as culturally possible.


ETA: Not to mention the Clotilda, which brought the last African slaves to the U.S., just three years before the Civil War. It was treated like some sort of grand adventure.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

I also firmly believe it's for all intents and purposes a referendum on American democracy. Judging by the damage Trump's done already, I genuenly believe one more term will be a death blow to freedom in America.

Abraham Lincoln.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by crescent

Narciso Lopez was "filibustering" which had a completely different meaning now than it did then. They were attacking various places with the goal of setting up nations with legalized slavery to ally with the Southern U.S.

See also William Walker, who led efforts to occupy parts of Baja California and Nicaragua, legalizing slavery both times.





That does not seem like an economic system that was fading away. People from what would be the Confederacy were actively attacking other nations in order to re-legalize slavery, spreading the Southern American slave-based economic system. Although it is may be true that it could have died out on its own, the conscious deliberate efforts to spread the system suggest it had strong economic and cultural support, such that it would not have gone slowly nor quietly. Based on Southern actions and actors like Walker, an independent South would have pushed to spread and maintain the slave-based economic system outside to other nations by force, and would have maintained some version of the system for as long as culturally possible.

If you can only get countries to adopt your economic system by force, your system is not going to last, as the Soviets eventually discovered.

[Mader Levap]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I have no idea at all how such a civil war would be done today, or even if something could be done today that would justify using the term at all.
What manner do you think it would be done in, today?

Indeed, situation today is very different. After all, in USA "red" or "blue" states are misnomer. It is more like red country/suburbia and blue cities. There won't be states vs states warfare.

There are some analogues historically and currently in the world. Insurgency, guerilla warfare, terrorism, constant low-level conflict. All used when there are no clear geographically sides and no serious weaponry and/or resources (since I assume military will mostly stay out of it*).

I guess depending on intensity some would reject label "civil war". For me it is more about how widespread it is, though some minimal level of continuous violence must be maintained to call it "war".

And about althistory where Confederacy won... wouldn't they blew up themself in pieces sooner or latter for various reasons and in-fighting anyway? You don't need to wait for slavery to become uneconomical.

* If military actually gets involved, all bets are off. Even more if military splits into two sides, THEN it will get really, really ugly.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

I guess depending on intensity some would reject label "civil war". For me it is more about how widespread it is, though some minimal level of continuous violence must be maintained to call it "war".

I find myself wondering if it might get to a level a bit like Ireland during "The Troubles". Never an all out war. Constant low level violence. No actual "armies" or "battles", but heavy police and military presence, with violent protests and terrorism regularly in the headlines.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I find myself wondering if it might get to a level a bit like Ireland during "The Troubles". Never an all out war. Constant low level violence. No actual "armies" or "battles", but heavy police and military presence, with violent protests and terrorism regularly in the headlines.

Except that many police and military here are likely to side with right-wing terrorists.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by shemp

Except that many police and military here are likely to side with right-wing terrorists.

Who was left vs right wing in the troubles?

[kookbreaker]

Originally Posted by Brainster

If you can only get countries to adopt your economic system by force, your system is not going to last, as the Soviets eventually discovered.

Which was not the prevailing thought in the mid-19th century. They had a measure of success with Texas, and a partial success with Kansas.

[Stacyhs]

Since discussing whether slavery would have ended eventually even if the Confederacy had prevailed (which seems to have rather gone off the rails from what I was saying anyway) is off-topic and would likely be removed by the mods, I'll refrain from replying further on that topic.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Mader Levap

Indeed, situation today is very different. After all, in USA "red" or "blue" states are misnomer. It is more like red country/suburbia and blue cities. There won't be states vs states warfare.

Indeed. Even the city v. rural divide doesn't really work. Look at this map of Texas (because who cares about not-Texas):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...sults_2016.svg

The more populous counties are blue. So, those are the cities and that is where the Dems are. But if you look at this map you see something else:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U..._by_county.png

There is a lot of red in those blue counties. In fact, those blue counties are barely blue, sometimes.

So, if you look at Dallas county, a blue dot in a sea of red in the northeast part of the state, you may think that it is a liberal haven. In fact it is just barely liberal and it is surrounded by areas that are very republican. Dallas County is not about to secede from the rest of North Texas. Dallas is very much a part of the region. The DFW metroplex and the suburbs surrounding Dallas are as much a part of the Dallas economy as their home teams, the Dallas Cowboys and the Texas Rangers (neither of which are in the City of Dallas or Dallas County).

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I find myself wondering if it might get to a level a bit like Ireland during "The Troubles". Never an all out war. Constant low level violence. No actual "armies" or "battles", but heavy police and military presence, with violent protests and terrorism regularly in the headlines.

Which side would the police and military be on?

I'm not sure the Troubles would be a good model, though. Northern Ireland was a case of a central government imposing a union on a local populace against their will.

What imposition by what governments would prompt the kind of separatist violence here, that happened there?

Who would be resisting? What side would the police and military presence be representing?

I mean, right now, in places like Portland, Chicago, Seattle, the violence is primarily coming from the left, calling for "secession" from their local police presence. How does that translate to the Troubles Model?

[CapelDodger]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Which side would the police and military be on?

I'm not sure the Troubles would be a good model, though. Northern Ireland was a case of a central government imposing a union on a local populace against their will.

The majority in Northern Ireland was (and is) Unionist.

Quote:

What imposition by what governments would prompt the kind of separatist violence here, that happened there?

The government of North Ireland (the "Stormont Government") imposed what were essentially Jim Crow conditions on the Nationalist minority, while the UVF played the role of the Klan.

Quote:

Who would be resisting? What side would the police and military presence be representing?

The Royal Ulster Constabulary was established at partition, and was described at its foundation as "a Protestant police force for a Protestant people". The military were sent in originally to protect the minority from Unionist mobs, the RUC, and an auxiliary police force, the B Specials, which were burning out Catholic neighbourhoods in response to the Civil Rights movement. The military role was quickly subverted by the Unionists with the help of sympathisers within the military and the Tory party in the Westminster government (assisted by provocations from militant Nationalists).

Quote:

I mean, right now, in places like Portland, Chicago, Seattle, the violence is primarily coming from the left, calling for "secession" from their local police presence. How does that translate to the Troubles Model?

Translated to the US, the Westminster government would be the Federal government, the Tory party would be the Republicans, the Stormont Government would be a Republican state government, and the Nationalist minority would be the Black minority in the state. If Trump wins I think it's fair to say that Jim Crow conditions will return to Confederate states very quickly.

The Troubles Model doesn't apply to Democratic States. Their story would be different, but would likely involve Trumptrash militias and the White House trying to make the state ungovernable to justify Barr and Wolf sending their people in to restore order. States' Rights would be a thing of the past in the Republican Party (as it pretty much is now).