I’ve always figured “revolutions” are successful uprisings, “civil wars” either aren’t successful, or aren’t yet. I’ve never heard there was another distinction.
The only weapon I need to fight any “civil war” is my right to vote.
Take that away from me and I’ll consider taking up arms. Otherwise, what kind of dolt do you have to be to NOT learn the lesson from our first civil war?
It’s unlikely that any revolution-worthy changes will occur until after the public is disarmed, and at that point the public won’t have the means for a revolution. So… the only chance I see of a violent revolution (you know, the effective kind) is if the government disarms the public in an unwise way.
Oh, and the government needs to maintain a loyal military. That’s important. Soldiers are already trained to not have opinions or identities, but I don’t feel that would be enough if the government touched something very important to a good number of them.
I’d support any civil war that came along, for any reason.
That is to say, I’d support one side or the other.
We’re supposed to use Politics to solve our problems. Once we start shooting at each other the system has failed and America is over. We survived one Civil War but even almost 150 years later there is still bitterness about it and incomplete healing.
We are a different Country now, I doubt we would survive a second one. I don’t mean everyone would die. I just mean whatever comes out of the other side wouldn’t be America anymore.
That would be cool. I could furnish my apartment with vases from the Duck Dynasty.
I didn’t support the *first *civil war. I’d be against another.
That would be my choice, but I think the government would be like South Africa, not letting you take much money with you.
Things like that are not why civil wars happen, they are the sort of things that cause governments to be voted out of power (if lots of people don’t like them) or (if only a small minority don’t like them) they cause individuals to emigrate or become recluses (like Ted Kaczynski) maybe even to turn terrorist (which is not at all the same as starting a civil war).
For a civil war you need two (or more) large, reasonably similarly sized groups within a country that have a strong, pre-established group identity and common interests, and they have to disagree strongly about something. Probably that something needs to be something that threatens the very livelihood of one group if the other has their way. It also helps a lot (towards war) if both sides control various segments the military and other organs of government, and if they live, in large part, in different regions.
A revolution is a different thing again, calling for its own, quite distinct conditions. So also, is a coup.
I’d support a civil war if the red states declared one against the liberal ones, because in their minds the country isn’t religio-fascistic enough for their tastes. We’d win this time too.
You’re ignoring the possibility that it’s the armed people instituting the revolution-worthy changes to begin with, as well as the many means for revolution that don’t require the public to be armed.
Pretty much this.
Sorry, it won’t happen. Here’s the real Red/Blue map. (Cursor down a bit, since I’ve left it in context.)
Our idiot governor might posture about secession–but he took that back when he made his first laughable run at the Presidential nomination. Nobody smart (here or in the other “red” states) thinks that secession would be a good idea. Not that it ever was. Even most of the “Conservatives” know better…
An interesting question. None of these things. Being a refusnik is a sufficient response if I don’t want to leave.
The only thing I can think would make a civil war worth it would be the reinstitution of slavery. That would be the only thing in my mind that could justify that kind of bloodshed. And I think that it is the only thing that Lincoln fought over under the guise of “the Union”.
I have seen this map, but when one considers that it is extremely easy to move to a different state and that people do so to be with their “own kind” relatively often (I know five people personally who have done so – all conservatives moving to more conservative states), it isn’t all that hard for me to imagine a near future in which there are more and larger strongholds of right wingers who become more and more pugnacious, until a breaking point is reached and they start shooting.
It is obvious, even from the OP questions, that the rebellion would come from the far right, and nowhere else. Since I’m far left, my answer would have to be “only if they start it first.”
Yeah, but most of the people moving to Texas aren’t right wing idiots. They’re mostly looking for work in places like Austin. (Ted Nugent does* not* count!) And it’s not always extremely easy for grownups to move. You sound like you know more conservatives than I do. Did they move to Texas?
Sam Houston counseled against secession–he lost the Governorship because he refused to swear allegiance to the Confederacy. He warned Texas that the North would win. I don’t see any bunch of gun nuts able to beat the US Armed Forces. Which include many Southerners (& others you no doubt consider undesirables). But I doubt they would commit treason like the “well respected” Bobby Lee…
Were they more specific as to why?
True enough. I notice we are moving (inevitably) toward “why the far right in the US isn’t going to make good on their threats and posturing” instead of answering the OP, but really, that kind of is the answer.
I guess some severe, unjustifiable violence from the government or major infringements on civil rights that couldn’t be turned back by the ballot. In other words, if a horrible dictatorship took over.
But really, I don’t know. It’s like the old hypothetical most people ask themselves at one point or other: what would you do if you were living in Germany in the 1930s? I like to think that I would stay and fight against the Nazi menace, but am I really and truly brave enough to have done that? Would I have emigrated? Would I have clucked my tongue and expressed my disapproval when I could get away with it, but otherwise kept my head low and ridden it out, as long as it didn’t effect me and my family? I don’t know. We all like to think we’d have been the type of people to join the underground, but I bet it’s an awfully hard thing to do when it comes down to it.
I mean, there are awful things happening in the world now, but other than saying I dislike them, voting for politicians who say they’ll take care of the issue, or donating money to the Red Cross, what am I - or most people - doing? I’m not out there putting my life on the line for principles I say I believe in. Would that be different if the violations were in my own country?
20, 50 or 100 years from now, who knows what changes might lead to a civil war?
But for the next 19 years at least, I think American society is too integrated (thought-wise and economically, I’m not talking racial) to support the slightest possibility of a civil war along geographical lines. There simply isn’t any issue sufficiently divisive that can’t be settled at the ballot box or by other, more peaceful means.