The first civil war had purple states, too. Virginia actually split, and Tennessee might have split if the Union part had been as defensible as West Virginia. There was bloodshed from house to house in some places, but that was the exception.
People can divide up geographically with remarkable speed. If you’re in the distinct minority you probably won’t grab a gun and go a-fightin’. You will probably go along with it.
I agree. The world in 50-100 years is going to be a very different place.
You do realize 6 of the 11 states were against secession until the call for troops, and at least two northern states only avoided seceding because their position was too compromised.
This is why people like dseid have such a hard time explaining how wars actually happen and how they get to a point of being along borders despite the populus being split on the underlying issues.
Simplifying any war to a single issue doesn’t illustrate the driving forces that turn it into a conflict of major players, rather than just riots and civil unrest and neighbor to neighbor violence.
I agree- we have some safety because of a professional military that teaches its soldiers respect for law. What bugs me though is the number of us who think this question is worth reading about and responding to. Clearly something about this topic resonates, and not just with the wingnuts. Our political discussions seem to have gone from pointed to enraged to just plain wacko. Everybody needs to calm down!
I’m just noting that most of these fantasies and most of the commenters here are assuming the Reds are going against the “Government” that is supported by the Blues.
Particularly with the current administration in office, lets not forget that it might be the Blues pushing for an insurrection against a fascist government.
Especially if Trump uses some un-Constitutional method to prolong his time in office.
Well, if that happens, and it comes to insurrection/civil war, the Blues would be screwed harder.