"Civil War" Topic

Considering the political attacks on the presidential candidates, that resemble the sort of actions taken in other what are termed authoritarian banana republic regimes around the world during the run up to the 2024 election, along with the blind media support for the government. Is it possible that the Us will slide into Civil war during 2024 following election results that will not be accepted as fair or genuine by a large part of the nation?

I doubt it very much.

Where's that eye-rolling emoji?

I would say you do not know us very well. There is our cynical media. But then there is us. Complex but still one nation.

In my opinion there are two small minorities in the US who is very loud and vocal. One republican and one democratic.

But there is a huge overwhelming majority or ordinary people who are republican or democrats but are sane, normal people. There won't be a civil war as the loud mouths are to few.

Regardless of the motives of the op, I seem to recall discussing this topic, a second Civil War in the US, back in the late 1990s or early 2000s on a Usenet forum with Ty Beard, author of the Fistful rules series.

And, of course, this topic keeps popping up on the Ultramodern, Near Future, or Postapocalyptic boards on TMP.
There is no Wishful Fantasy board, is there?

It is a deeply traumatic event in U.S. history, so talk of a repeat is inevitable.
It's perfectly legitimate to bring up the topic again.

+1 to Tortorella and Soledad.

If you unplug from the news and social media for a couple of weeks you will be surprised at how normal your life really is.

Just a few as a primer:

Why A Second US Civil War Would Be Far Worse Than The First – On TMP in 2022

Civil War II – On TMP in 2019

Divided We Fall--The 2nd American Civil War – On TMP in 2018

IF There Was A Second ACW In The Near Or Distant Future – On TMP in 2017

Never say never, who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men

We aren't a banana republic… We're a DEMOCRATIC banana republic!

+1 Soledad

I predict less of a civil war and more movement to states that hold the same values. Some examples…

1. A woman I talked to recently refused a company transfer to California over taxes (30% of her income in state taxes) and her husband would have to give up his gun collection. The company sent her to Arizona instead for same rate of pay. She pays lower taxes and her husband gets to keep his assault rifle collection.

2. A relative recently moved from South Dakota to Minnesota over anti-abortion, anti-homosexual and anti-gender changing laws and vowed to never return. Even though none of these issues apply directly to her.

"Down the road I can envision violence"

Grattan54 +1

I predict domestic terrorist organizations from both sides, but they will be a minority. Example Oh, you chose to indict my hero well then there is a need to retaliate, and soft targets are acceptable.

I believe that George Washington warned us about the perils of political parties.

I don't entirely agree with the contents of the link but as an outside observer I don't entirely disagree…
YouTube link

It would be a great tragedy and calamity. It IS a possibility. And a perfectly reasonable topic for polling and discussion.
Kurt Schlicter's book examines various scenarios.

During the brexit vote there was the same question asked about the uk on this forum, it didnt happen of course but i think that it is still a dividing issue from what I can see of them but not to violence. Looking at the us the divisions seem much deeper and wider. That is looking at the media from afar.

"small minorities" are the way many wars begin, civil and otherwise. Most people believe in live and let live (IMHO) but they don't always get their wish.

Civil war to what end? Choctaw is right. The issues being supplied by the media to boost ratings have made us look more divided than we are. We are susceptible to this and that is a big challenge. We always have problems but the sky is not falling. We will not take up arms against each other, we are more deeply connected than even we realize.

No way am I giving up on the United States.

The vast majority of American citizens are solidly in favor of union. The fringes get more press but remain simply loud losers ignored more often than not by their neighbors if not the press.

following election results that will not be accepted as fair or genuine by a large part of the nation?

Most likely the same vocal and violent minority that did not like the outcome of the last election.

along with the blind media support for the government.

I don't know of any media which has blind support for the government. But I do know one which has blind support for a political party and the cult of one person.

"The fringes get more press"

They get a white-hot spotlight and then the other party says, "See they are all like that". It is an excellent way to demonize the opposition and solidify loyalty to a particular party.

We all get played by the media. It's a business. But would you go to war and fight for a media Nation? We are just not going to do that. It's entertainment. It's infuriating. But it's not enough to do us in.

The issue is the bundle packaged alliance of various fringe groups and lunatics attaching themselves to either party and those parties will not disavow them.

+1 Dragon Gunner

The parties (both of them) are incredible disappointments, pandering to their extreme fringes. Same with the main stream media: FOX, CNN, etc only say what they think their audiences want to hear. OAN and MSNBC are even worse…

Freedom of the press comes with a price. It has influenced American political life to the point where even billion dollar lawsuits and settlements cannot slow the politicized profit agenda.

But nobody makes you believe the opinions and rants that replaced the news. Some people cannot separate rants from reality and go off the rails. There are plenty of ways to put together a balanced view of the issues.

We have access to too much info and BS online and on cable, are too gullible about the pronouncements of big star media figures. You do not have to join a news media Nation. Question every source, look for the corroborating stories, motives, methods, data across the spectrum. You be the reporter, covering all the news, look at both sides.

Or just shut the whole media thing down and look around you, as Choctaw says.
Who in their right minds are so aggrieved as to see a solution in fighting a civil war against the United States? The fringe groups, yes. But not the majority.

I can't consider the political attacks. After I read the authoritative postings of what government officials are actually doing, I don't have time to pay attention to what they say in public (though sometimes you can't avoid it) … I need to save some time to play with my dollies.

Concur with the "loud people get more press". That doesn't mean loud people are representative of what the majority of people will think or do.

One of the greatest freedoms we have is the secret ballot. You can poll the voting populace of an area that voted 95% one way and get 05% the other answer. Because when the media is in my face, I can say whatever I think will make people leave me alone and vote my conscience in the booth. I can say Candidate X to my friends, family, to people on the street who thing a trifold pamphlet with a lot of pictures is informing the voters and go in the polls and vote Candidate Y.

Theoretical civil war is always fun – remember the wargame about Quebec seceding from Canada?

You could have a potential cities vs suburbs conflict…

All we have is the 1860 example, and the current situation is similar only in part.

Thirty years ago I'd have said the chance of disunion was about zero. Today I think it is about 50/50. A lot would have to go wrong to get to 100% it's happening, but we have moved a good (bad) piece in that direction.

There ARE red and blue states. But of course the rural/urban divide may be more fundamental: upstate NY is red and Austin is blue.

It would take a huge blunder by politicians. Say an attempt at national gun confiscation. Some red state governments would likely resist that, and rural areas surely would.

A 1876-style disputed election would be another possible scenario. Northern Democrats were going around saying "Tilden or blood" until the railroad deal pulled the south into the Hayes camp. A blunder instead of a shrewd compromise could have ignited civil war.

So it is POSSIBLE, yes, but only IF some things break wrong.

Highly unlikely of a shooting ACW 2.0 occurring. It is being fought in the media, etc. now.

It would take a huge blunder by politicians.

Not out of the realm of possibility. Depending on how the 2024 election goes the United States will either have a chance to course correct away from an all-powerful central government being championed by the Democrats and Establishment GOP, or not. If not, I can see Red States starting to ignore the power grabbing dictats from Washington DC, and then it's up to the Democrats to start our next Civil War or not. Again.

There ARE red and blue states.

I don't believe there really are with a few exceptions. Virtually all elections, even at the state level, are rarely over 55/45 and nationally 52/48 is usually a thumping in the Electoral College. Even the so called rural/urban divide is really decided in most states by the suburbs and in particular, suburban women. Soccer moms really do hold the balance of power and most are not eager to grab a gun and fight "the power".

Our county, roughly the size of the State of Delaware but with a total population of 17,300 is bright red but never hits 60% for any candidate.

In polling after polling, ignoring party specific labels, most Americans have remarkably similar attitudes and are open to compromise. Only the truly hardcore idiots on the left and right, generally small minorities within their respective parties but louder and more willing to vote in primaries, truly wish to dig in and opt for stupid over compromise and the 2022 midterms punished the extremes while generally (not always – sigh) voting in the candidates closer to the middle.

The Exhausted Majority is now a thing! Go USA!

The thing that strikes me looking in. Is what wiil become of the people that wanted to vote for the big T and also the Kennedy if these candidates are prevented from running in what could be seen as a fair way, or just not allowed. There will be some very disillusioned voters who could say that the sitting government has become a tyranny and should be removed.

I look in astonished, and to an extent appalled, by the situation, the US, the standard bearer of freedom, seems to be in. How is it that a nation of over 300,000,000 intelligent, pro-active, dynamic, entrepreneurial people, can only come up with two superannuated, deeply flawed candidates, as the choice for the future? Surely there are better options?

Moll, agree as to the gerontocracy.

McK, yes, but the fact that each party has a base of maybe 25-30% which is devoted to it, perhaps fanatically so, is the reason why elections are close even in red or blue states. But thta fact also underlies the possibility of civil conflict.

However, the dozen or so people nearest and dearest to me are evenly divided. All well-educated and above-average intelligence, all Christians, all sharing close family ties, yet so deeply divided politically we pretty much have to avoid the topic. I offer this datum but I don't know what conclusion it supports. We would never go to war against each other (I THINK -- but that happened in 1861) but otoh the two parties represent such divergent visions and values as to override the ties of religion and kinship. In particular, two generations have seen siblings raised in identical family and educational settings take profoundly opposing views. So the divisions are deep.

[q] Surely there are better options?[/q]

The Republican primary field is very large right now, so plenty of choices. That will narrow as the primaries continue. You're in the UK, so you don't see everything going on here. Democrats? Maybe 2? Third parties just act as spoilers for one or the other party winning.

Whatever happens I believe, as a born again Christian, that God either allows it to happen or makes it happen according to his plan.

Sadly, politics (and other social/environmental issues) are the religion of many people. Gotta fill that internal void with something!

The real people that would be good leaders won't get involved. It is a mess, a swamp … Many in top leadership positions, elected or appointed have not got the right stuff to lead the USA. Or probably much else. And many of our enemies know it …

Those in charge forgot why they are there – "we the people" …

Not to make $ …

There is a shortage of genuine leaders with personal integrity and ability who are seasoned enough to figure out getting the money in order to be elected. This can still be done without selling your soul, I hope. But the next generation of real leaders are young and not yet ready, IMO.

If there is a "second civil war" it will be legal and financial.

A rebellious state government might inform citizens that they are to ignore federal tax collectors; the state will collect taxes on their behalf and forward (what they determine to be) the appropriate amount.

Or it might intervene to prevent federal agencies from acting. A state might declare that the federal government simply has no right to overturn a state decision.

No one will deploy an infantry brigade because a state refuses federal demands to change a textbook, issue a parade permit, close a factory or fund a university program.

Unlike 1862, there is no issue equivalent to slavery, no matter how much political partisans scream.

Actually, Ben, there are several. But the solution to most is federalism: let the states do it.

An attempt to impose an abortion policy, in either direction, on a nation-wide basis would be seen as illegitimate by some states. It is an issue as intense and as moral as slavery.

Ditto a national voting criteria.

Interference at the national level with any of the first and second amendment rights would be resisted.

+1 OC

Again, I think you can see significant issues within the states that do not result in violence other than the odd looney. Multiple states have voted via referendum post-Roe to allow abortion by substantive margins even though legislatures have passed restrictions that essentially ban the process also by substantive margins and likely Ohio and Missouri will as well this Fall. While this is a highly divisive issue nobody has threatened or acted violently, again except for the odd individual.

Americans are more united around the rule of law than they are on interpretations of the First or Second Amendment. Even within the individual states great divisions exist but nobody in generally bright red Kansas is going to the bunkers because abortion was codified by referendum and nobody in bright blue New York is revolting when their restrictive carry laws were overturned.

Seems like many states and cities do what they want anyway … E.g. CA, WI, NYC, Chicago, DC, etc. We may be in a virtual ACW 2.0. now …

Everything starts with capable competent leadership, or it is rudderless. The tail is wagging the dog. And the tail is small at that.

"The government you elect is the government you deserve."

Thomas Jefferson

Although he may have been paraphrasing the Frenchman Joesph de Maistre(sp?)

McK, yes, devoted to the rule of law as long as the law is respected as impartial. And willing to abide by the results of elections as long as the elections are perceived as fair. Both of those are far more in question than twenty years ago. And trust, once lost, is very difficult to restore.

Whatever people thought about the election, there was no war. There are radicals on the left and right. The middle will not fight itself. For every difference we have between red and blue states, there are ten things in common.

When there are radical political media and leaders with self-interested power agendas, they are loud, relentless and negative. We are in a decades long period of lost trust in institutions, some are near all time lows, according to Gallup. From churches to the Supreme Court.

But when it comes to taking up arms against the United States, how many would look around for themselves and then take that step? How many might wonder about impact of such a war and its outcome before grabbing their weapons? At some point reality is going to make a comeback.

I'm stocking up on ammo just in case … The 2020 riots were a good reason to be prepared. I have no reason to do anything but home defense. BLM, Antifa, millions of illegal aliens, etc., etc. normally don't come to the 'burbs near rural areas. But things just keep getting worse, IMO.

Tort, your optimism is laudable. I cannot manage it. For one big thing, my historical investigation (especially 1772-1775 but also the 1850s) persuades me that what the moderate middle thinks is sometimes (not always) irrelevant. Even within Boston there were more moderates (the merchants mostly) opposing any sort of revolution. Yet it came, the work of a small group of radicals who manipulated public opinion -- aided by British arrogance and stupidity. Much the same is true of the decade leading to the Civil War.

Not saying it WILL happen, and I do not WANT it to happen, but it damned sure CAN happen.

I'm a remainer and I'm stocking up with ammo!
Oh
Wait.

Even if I had something more threatening than my air rifle, enough leavers have died off now.
Just need to get another vote :^(

BLM, Antifa, millions of illegal aliens, etc., etc. normally don't come to the 'burbs near rural areas.

These aliens might . . . :)

link