A new American Civil War....possible?

Great Debates
1

I’m currently reading a book by Orson Scott Card entitled Empire. The book is about a new American Civil war in the not too distant future. In the book, one of the characters makes a statement saying basically that no country is immune from a civil war…not even the US. The character then goes on to discuss how all it takes to have a civil war is to convince both (or at least one) ‘side’ that the other is willing too or about to shoot.

I was thinking about this while I read it in the context of the current political environment…especially wrt a lot of the political rhetoric on this board concerning some of the more radical posters view that the Republicans WOULD ‘shoot’ (or be willing to take over the country by force of arms, tear up the constitution, toss out the republic and set GW up as George the First, etc etc). It got me thinking about the venomous political rhetoric on BOTH sides at the extremes…and how this may or may not fit into a possible POTENTIAL civil war in the US down the pike.

For debate…how likely is it that the US will ever have a civil war again? Does the current political environment with both sides no longer to even attempt to examine or work with the other side fuel the potential for such a ‘left’ vs ‘right’ civil war in the future? Or would/could a US civil war come from some other quarter? Could simple fear drive one side or the other to become convinced (or to have some unscrupulous types manipulate one side or the other to CONVINCE them) that the other side might just pull the trigger…thus making a kind of self fulfilling prophesy? What possible conditions would/could it take to cause another US civil war? Or could this NEVER happen in the US again?

-XT

2

Well, let’s face facts. A lot of the hysterical hand-wringing is due to Bush himself. Any other Republican president and the hysteria retreats to the normal margins.

There’s been a sort of trend in the Republican party, starting with Lee Atwater and now with Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales and their ilk. And while I might be engaging in wishful thinking, the current disasterous failure of the Bush administration is very likely to end this trend.

I don’t know what the Republican party is going to look like in 2012, but I suspect a few more years of disasterous electoral results is going to leave party ripe for reorganization. I could be wrong, look at how people were predicting the end of the Democratic party in 1994 after Newt Gingrich lead the takeover of the House. But the Republicans seem hellbent on transforming themselves into a permanent minority party.

Except the carcass of the Republican party is too valuable to just leave to sit there and rot, it will be taken over by some coalition of interests and eventually slog back into relevance. Back at the turn of the century the Democratic party was the party of the white agrarian south, and the Republicans were the party of the industrial north, and black people routinely voted Republican. Roosevelt, the New Deal, WWII, and eventually the civil rights movement turned all that topsy turvy.

3

I asked my grandfather a few weeks ago, “Has political division always been this bad?”

He laughed. “It’s been worse,” he said. “This is peanuts.”

So I guess that would be my answer. We’re most likely not on the brink of a Civil War. If things continued to go downhill for maybe 50 years or a century–coupled with maybe the economy collapsing or class stratification to continue to worsen until it rivals South America–then I think you might have a chance. But as best as I understand it, people have to be starving to death or otherwise seriously oppressed to start killing one another. The idea of bourgeoisie people in the U.S. rising up and shooting each other down is kind of laughable. I think Middle class people don’t really have a reason to fight.

4

At any rate, civil war along regional lines, as in 1861, is no longer a possibilty. Too many Americans nowadays have relatives in other states and identify with something other than their region of residence. Too many do not even live in the state where they were born. If we ever have another civil war, it will be more of a true national civil war – like England’s in 1642, or Russia’s in 1917, or, for that matter, America’s during the Revolution – than a sectional conflict.

5

Right, and we Americans have some odd expectations about what a civil war should be like. Pure region vs. region civil wars are pretty rare, except in an imperial context where a province is trying to revolt from the central government, but I don’t think it’s generally fair to call those sorts of things “civil wars”.

6

'Fraid not. See Iraq. Or Yugoslavia. Or Rwanda.

7

Are you saying people weren’t “seriously oppressed” is those places??

I dunno about that. In addition, the RIGHT wing “hand-wringing” doesn’t have much to do with Bush at all. On the loony left side, it DOES seem to have gotten more strident since Bush was elected…but its grown beyond merely Bush and his administration I think. And the ammount of venom on both sides has gotten worse as well.

I don’t think we are in Civil War territory…but I think we COULD be if both sides continue to butt heads the way they have been. I’ve seen some truely loony stuff creep in from the extreme’s until it becomes nearly mainstream. I’ve seen some examples of stuff I think is totally off the wall discussed almost rationally right here on this board. It can be a bit scary sometimes these days…

-XT

8

The Hutu in Rwanda were not. As for Iraq and Yugoslavia, the civil strife did not commence until after the authoritarian lid had been ripped off the kettle.

9

Which is just as it should be.

10

Most civil wars seem to have an ethnic/religious aspect to them. I don’t think we’ll start killing each other over ideology, no matter how divisive things get.

11

But Rwanda was a third world nation, and Iraq had its infrastructure blown all to hell.

Poverty is a kind of oppression too.

12

About the only plausible scenerio I can see for an American civil war is if some party, administration or faction that was in power decided to suspend the democratic process: declare martial law, openly suppress dissent, etc. And this won’t happen as long as doing so remains too counter-productive to the ruling faction’s goals. Fortunately, the current power structure is too dependent on democracy to trivially abolish it.

13

Bush has done all of this and most people don’t seem to care much. I can’t imagine what it would take for the average American to stand up and fight for their rights at this point.
Edit: :smack: Bush has not declared martial law to my knowledge. Not YET! :slight_smile:

14

If the South rose again, I think this time it would simply be left to go it alone.
Same as if Quebec left Canada.
A certain amount of confusion and squabbling over border assets, pipelines and water rights and such, but nothing to shed blood over.

15

Indeed. I was convinced there would be a civil war (or insurrection or whatever you want to call it) in the early 1970s. My father was convinced there would be civil war during the early part of the Great Depression. I never talked to my grandfather about it, but he probably thought the government would have had to battle the Bolsheviks in the streets.

16

March 23th, 2020- AP - Tristan Llewellyn

After a long battle in both the House and the Senate, the Public Safety bill was passed today by a slim margin. Never before has one issue so polarized the political bodies of the US gov’t as the passage of the bill, which calls for the disarming and criminalization of firearms in the hands of civilians.
Pundits on both sides have called the passage of this bill the first shot in what may prove to be a changing point in the history of the nation.
Rhetoric has been heated on both sides, with the partisan factionalization of the various political parties reaching a high a new high.
The Governors of several states, including Montana, Wyoming and Texas, have stated that they will not ratify this law, and will bring suit in the Federal Supreme Court to overturn it…

April 17th, 2020- AP - Tristan Llewellyn

The Homeland Defense Department has begun the process of collecting firearms, setting up collections centers throughout the nation…

June 1st, 2020- AP - Tristan Llewellyn

Several regions of the states of Montana, including Cascade County, and Teton County, have been declared to be in violation of the Public Safety Bill, as local leaders have refused to co-operate with Federal authorities.
“They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands,” says an unnamed hunter in Great Falls, interviewed during an anti-government rally. “Our forefathers wanted it that way, and no way am I going to lay down and let that idiot in the White House take that right away from me.”
The director of the Homeland Defense Department has stated that the disarmament will continue, and no “unlawful” elements will stop the process.

Sept 6th, 2020- AP - Tristan Llewellyn

A National Guard unit has been arrested and charged with mutiny after failing to follow their orders to seize, by force, the farmhouse of one Arthur Andrews, 63, who had refused to turn over his extensive collection of weapons. Andrews, himself a military veteran, was unavailable for comment, though he did wave an American flag before he was tackled and then taken into a HumVee by military authorities.

October 3rd, 2020- AP - Tristan Llewellyn

Confusion reigns and communications have broken down after the Idaho National Guard unit attached to the Homeland Defense department opened fire today on federal authorities in the process of arresting those found to be in violation of the Public Disarmament Act. “The lawless rouges within the Idaho National Guard will be found, and they will be dealt with in the manner appropriate,” a White House spokesman said at an emergency new conference today…

You can see where this is going, I’m sure.

This conjecture includes a continuing and growing rift between right and left, and the failure of a middle ground party to establish itself. I could see it, unlikely though it may be today.
Note- This is taken almost verbatim from my post in a previous thread…

17

A civil war requires two parties who can command substantial enough personnel and resources to engage in warfare. Who in the United States today is interested in, and potentially capable of, going to war with the federal government?

18

The Federal Government.

In my head, the extrapolation from the events I’ve posted above basically show the military splitting or in large part dissolving, and one Faction of the government trying to inforce a law, and local areas resisting, up to and including shooting.

This works, until it becomes necessary to call in air power, or deploy tanks.

Then you have the problem of asking soldiers (volunteers) to do some terrible things to people who they may or may not sympathize with.

I don’t know.

How did the shooting start in Russia, or England?

19

The most likely scenario would be in the aftermath of a major terrorist attack destroying the federal government - a tactical nuke going off in Washington or something of that caliber. At that point, with the President, Vice President, Congress, the cabinet, the Supreme Court, etc all gone at once, there would be no clear-cut individuals who were next in line. With luck, the country would get together and form a provisional government and hold special elections. But if there was any dissent, the validity of these unusual circumstances and the legitimacy of the resulting government might be disputed.

20

At that point, the Dark Lord Cheney would emerge from his undisclosed location and rule us all with his Sneer of Power.