The Next American Civil War

[uncle money bags]

The only civil war in American history was literally decades in the making, arguably as far back as the Three-Fifths Compromise. A great deal of blood was shed long before 1861 ("Bloody Kansas" was not a term first used by a Brit complaining about the wind in Kansas), and the political in-fightning (which meant actual FIGHTING in some sessions of Congress) was long and protracted. John Brown raided Harper's Ferry with the fervent hope that fellow Free-Soilers would rise up and take arms in his support. He was mistaken, despite the fact that such tensions had been rising for years. It takes a short-sighted view of history to be believe that this nation is at "the tipping point", or that it is anywhere near another American Civil War.

Your post is instructive, but limited to an example of one. That seems to be a more short sighted view of history to me. We did not get to this point by virtue of the events since last November, or even four years before that. This has been a festering sore poked and prodded at since FDR.

 

[mightymouse]

Your post is instructive, but limited to an example of one. That seems to be a more short sighted view of history to me. We did not get to this point by virtue of the events since last November, or even four years before that. This has been a festering sore poked and prodded at since FDR.

Well, first of all, my "example of one" is limited to one because there has been but one American Civil War. Second, your comment about FDR--what festering sore? The sort of festering sore that spawned the Three-Fifths Compromise (1787), the Compromise of 1820 (the Missouri Compromise), the Compromise of 1850, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854? Tell me a bit more about a short-sighted view of American History. I'd like to know.

 

[uncle money bags]

Well, first of all, my "example of one" is limited to one because there has been but one American Civil War. Second, your comment about FDR--what festering sore? The sort of festering sore that spawned the Three-Fifths Compromise (1787), the Compromise of 1820 (the Missouri Compromise) , the Compromise of 1850, or the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854? Tell me a bit more about a short-sighted view of American History. I'd like to know.

An "example of one" that happened 15 years before the first telephone was used in the United States. On that basis alone, and in consideration of how fast information is shared today, using the American civil war as a solitary example of what will need to occur before another civil war happens is a bold statement and not one that i agree with. The festering sore is my metaphor on the creeping cradle to grave nanny state that has softened our bodies and hardened our heads.
Regardless of the argument or what side is taken, using one example solely because it is the only one that has occurred in this nation ignores how our civilization has changed over the last 150 years. This is why i think it is short sighted.

 

[mightymouse]

An "example of one" that happened 15 years before the first telephone was used in the United States. On that basis alone, and in consideration of how fast information is shared today, using the American civil war as a solitary example of what will need to occur before another civil war happens is a bold statement and not one that i agree with. The festering sore is my metaphor on the creeping cradle to grave nanny state that has softened our bodies and hardened our heads.
Regardless of the argument or what side is taken, using one example solely because it is the only one that has occurred in this nation ignores how our civilization has changed over the last 150 years. This is why i think it is short sighted.

The reason it is not short-sighted is that slavery was an issue that was in the national news from 1787-1861. People died fighting for one side or the other long before the election of 1860 ignited the seccession crisis. The point is, it takes more than a few pissed off guys on a few gun forums to pitch a country into civil war. I've listed a few of the events that led up to the American Civil War. Perhaps you can think up an example where a few pissed off guys on a gun forum precipitated a full blown civil war?

 

[uncle money bags]

The reason it is not short-sighted is that slavery was an issue that was in the national news from 1787-1861. People died fighting for one side or the other long before the election of 1860 ignited the seccession crisis. The point is, it takes more than a few pissed off guys on a few gun forums to pitch a country into civil war. I've listed a few of the events that led up to the American Civil War. Perhaps you can think up an example where a few pissed off guys on a gun forum precipitated a full blown civil war?

If that was your point all along then why not state so in the beginning? Of course any reasonable person is going to agree that some "pissed off guys on a gun forum" does not a civil war make.

 

[mightymouse]

Another point I'd like to make is this: It has been 147 years since the end of the American Civil War. The reason there have been no more civil wars in this country since then is that the American political process works, and it works quite well, even given violent differences of opinion on everything from worker's wages and hours to female suffrage to Prohibition to the New Deal to civil rights to wars in far-off places. I don't see the fabric of American political life being quite as fragile as some. I guess it's because I'm short-sighted.

 

[uncle money bags]

Another point I'd like to make is this: It has been 147 years since the end of the American Civil War. The reason there have been no more civil wars in this country since then is that the American political process works, and it works quite well, even given violent differences of opinion on everything from worker's wages and hours to female suffrage to Prohibition to the New Deal to civil rights to wars in far-off places. I don't see the fabric of American political life being quite as fragile as some. I guess it's because I'm short-sighted.

I, for one, agree with your post. All of it.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

I feel there are more than just a few pissed off guys on a forum. Our 2A rights have been under attack for a very long time. And over the past 10-15 our country has slowly went down the toilet further and further. Just look at how bad things are now. Even from 5 years ago they are worse. If something isn't done about it this country is going to fall apart. You have to be blind to ignore the fact that the liberals are trying to do whatever they can to errode our 2A rights. And why do you think they want to do that so bad for?? If we are disarmed we can no longer be a threat to the government. Then they truly own us. And I ain't the only one that feels this way. People all over the country have the same mentality. What are you gonna do if these bans do succeed? Are you going to bend over and take it or do something about it?

 

[dowmace]

Things move faster in the modern age. The civil war would have been much earlier if national news traveled in the milliseconds it does now.

 

[reddog1]

Dollar about to implode
FEMA coffins
4.5 billion boolits
body armor / riot gear issued everywhere
tanks
militarization of all local police forces
drones
bullet proof pillboxes being dispersed throught the nation
armorys "popping up" everywhere

Hmmm.... maybe I am crazy?

No, The globalists WANT a civil war, so they can further their global genocide and enslavement plans.

ok DHS shills, flame on.

ITs all in our face, black and white. READ the signs people.