Again, if you think this is likely, it would kind of be imperative to either head for the hills, another country, or create a countervailing force. Instead of waiting to just get mowed down.
I’d just die of starvation and exposure in the hills, they wouldn’t need to do anything. Leaving the country isn’t practical for me. And creating a countervailing force isn’t possible.
Part 1 is National Guard units, which have real military training and equipment, and are answerable to the Governor.
Part 2 is the national military fracturing over the breakdown of the Constitution. If senior military commanders are opposed to doing illegal and immoral actions for Trump/Hegseth, they could break from central command. Yes, that’s an extreme scenario that our military is designed to resist, but our military is supposed to stay out of internal politics. And with Trump defying the courts and Congress letting him do whatever, Trump is rendering the Constitution no longer in effect.
If Blue states went so far as to secceed, that would be the likely justification. And the military would do like the first Civil War - split.
So it’s not a done deal that one side gets the whole military, or the local police. It depends greatly on the people in that area.
If I had that kind of energy, focus, determination, I wouldn’t be a first rung manager at WallyWorld.
OP here: I need to thank EVERYONE for their thoughtful insight and contributions in this thread. Reading this has been a gold mine and exactly the kind of knowledgeable unpacking I was hoping for. Just… thank you all 
So many comparisons to the 1861-65 war and not a single reference to Bleeding Kansas. In that scenario, violence would likely be sparked in areas with a nearly 50/50 split and red and blue contingents would flock in from areas where their ideology is already consolidated to tip the balance in those purple areas.
I’m not familiar with that part of the war.
1850s. The territory of Kansas had to decide if it would enter the union as a free state or a slave state. Once Kansans started fighting about it, militias poured in from other parts of the country to tip the balance one way or the other.
Political divides don’t become an actual on the ground shooting war until something arises that a war could actually decide; almost always a question of territory. For example the Catholic v. Protestant wars in early modern Europe weren’t really about private matters of faith, they were about which countries were politically aligned with the Papacy and whether the monarchs of a given country were declared illegitimate. The American Civil War was about the balance of power of the slave states vis-à-vis the federal government. The Bosnian War was about a grab for territory by regional factions after a weak central government fell.
IMHO, the most likely scenario for a modern American Civil War would be a disputed Presidential election, with one side refusing to acknowledge the authority of a President-elect. This would translate a political dispute into a military one: what regions were controlled by the new administration or not.
The Tulsa Race Massacre is the sort of thing we can expect a repeat of.
The Tulsa race massacre, also known as the Tulsa race riot or the Black Wall Street massacre,[12] was a two-day-long white supremacist terrorist[13][14] massacre[15] that took place between May 31 and June 1, 1921, when mobs of white residents, some of whom had been appointed as deputies and armed by city government officials,[16] attacked black residents and destroyed homes and businesses of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma.
With the difference that when the National Guard moves in it wont be to stop the killers, but to support them.
Excellent observation.
That is a strong possibility. I think we could get there before the election if States start flexing their sovereignty and Trump ignores/preempts the courts and tries to use Martial Law to take over. IMO Trump’s government acting against a state government could be a trigger as well. Essentially, states declare Trump’s government violates the Constitution and since the Courts can’t enforce (if they even rule against him) and Congress won’t act, it’s up to the States to protect their citizens.
Again, though, as a war, it’s a political level action between groups.
Violence leading to an internal breakdown of the social structure and a citizen revolts is a different scenario. Then it really would be a revolution, and whomever the military support is key. If the military fractures, then the revolution is a shooting war. Except the difference is the political faction opposed to the federal government isn’t at the state level, and it’s a lot harder to coordinate the various factions into some unified resistance.
Again, for this level of fighting, things would have to get a lot worse. Potentially worse than even currently projected. People can live under tyranny along time if most still have some level of comfort/security.
Isn’t 25% of those first two not White? They just going to lie down and take it? That’s not even counting the part of the 75% that isn’t all gung-ho for RaHoWa.
Right, yes. Starting about 1855, 1856. John Brown and his sons knocking on doors, then using swords to hack to death the pro-slavery people who opened their doors. The sack of Lawrence, Kansas, by pro-slavery Border Ruffians from Missouri. The invasion of anti-slavery folks from Massachusetts. The beating of abolitionist Senator Charles Sumner (Massachusetts) by pro-slavery Representative Preston Brooks (South Carolina), in the Senate Chamber, almost to the point of death. The Marais de Cygnes Massacre in (IIRC) 1857. Presidents Franklin Pierce had no idea what to do about mayhem in the Kansas Territory, and James Buchanan wasn’t much better. Not sure how I feel about Kansas’ basically acting governor Jim Lane, but I don’t think he could have done much anyway, as Kansas wasn’t yet a state, though it wanted to be. The Four Constitutions (Lecompton, Topeka, Leavenworth, Wyandotte) presented to Congress, of which only the Wyandotte would become the Kansas state constitution.
“Bleeding” or “Bloody Kansas” has been called by some historians as “the dress rehearsal for the US Civil War.” That war had sides, though, while all Kansas had was pro-slavery and anti-slavery, and basically pitted neighbour against neighbour. It wasn’t pretty. Kansas eventually became the 34th state (January 1861), when Congress allowed the Wyandotte Constitution to pass. Noteworthy were the Confederate states absent from the vote, for obvious reasons.
But Bleeding Kansas is what a modern-day US Civil War would look like. No battle lines, just small groups fighting other small groups, and in the end, lots of death and carnage on both sides.
Aside to @Elmer_J.Fudd : How’d I do?
The motive for any “civil war” - more of a one sided slaughter - will be the desire of the Right to kill everyone but them. Not territory, that would imply that they intend their targets to have any. This isn’t about secession, it’s about a war of religious, racial and political purification.
And I think it’s look less like Bleeding Kansas than like the Rwandan genocide.
Many of them will actively cooperate, convince themselves that the leopards won’t eat their face. And the ones who don’t will be purged. And eventually, all will. Ask the targets of the “Night of the Long Knives” how fascists reward loyalty.
And it’s not like non-white cops and soldiers don’t already aid in the persecution of non-whites.
Did they, last time?
In dribs and drabs. Open racist warfare is another matter entirely.
In a country with functional law enforcement that has sufficient firepower, the beginnings of a civil war would not lead to a full civil war but to (usually one sided) repression by the government.
I would like to offer the Altonaer Blutsonntag of 17 June 1932 as an example:
- Nazis stage a march of 7k stoormtoopers through working class, majority Social Democat and Communist neighbourhoods on the west side of Hamburg (at the time, within the state of Prussia). Think KKK march::black neighbourhood, or Northern Ireland Orangemen march::Catholic neighbourhood.
- In scuffles between Nazis and residents police panic; 2 Nazis die (as it turned out decades later, hit by police bullets)
- Police assume Communist snipers from apartment buildings, shoot at windows - kill 16 people in their apartments
- Reich government (right wing, tolerated by Nazis) declares this a Communist outrage, blames the center-left Prussian state government for not being able to keep order, takes over the Prussian state government by fiat of President Hindenburg. Prussian government chooses not to resist by using force, relying in vain on the courts. The purge of the heads of the Prussian civil service is a contributing factor that Nazi takeover of the whole country half a year later does not meet with resistance in Prussia.
I imagine it might play out in the US like this:
- Confrontations between MAGA and anti-MAGA lead to shots being fired.
- Federal government blames everything on an anti-MAGA a.k.a. “Antifa” terror campaign, which
- is a sufficient veneer of plausibility for a sufficient part of law enforcement to take part in cracking down on political opposition.
Better than me.
Wait, are you saying that massacre/ ethnic cleansing/ genocide works? That the victors can proudly stand in triumph over the crushed bones of their enemies, secure in their victory forever because those who would oppose them are now extinct?
Because every time I’ve raised that argument (in other contexts) the rebuttal was that force will only provoke greater outcry and greater Résistance. Which is it?
Nothing is forever IMHO. But that doesn’t change the fact that years, decades, even generations can be totally lost literally or being erased from history. There may be some cold comfort later when such things are brought to light, but even that will be tainted by legions of apologists or deniers.
But yes, it works to a degree, depending on the depths to which you sink. And how many lies you tell your population that they in turn are willing to believe. And don’t care for how others, be it individuals, other nations, your progeny or other descendants may look upon you. And far too many people DON’T care about others at all - humanity’s self-absorption about what’s best for Me, Myself, and I is never to be underestimated.
Of course, that’s what virtually all modern nations and cultures are based on.