Here's why the soft civil war will go hot...

There aren't actually very many people who want a civil war. The vast majority will bend-over backward to avoid it.

Even in 1860, Congress was actually in the process of passing an amendment to protect slavery where it already existed. Americans did not want secession or war. The problem is, secession still happened, and the CSA wanted war.
 
Chaz said:
There aren't actually very many people who want a civil war. The vast majority will bend-over backward to avoid it.

Even in 1860, Congress was actually in the process of passing an amendment to protect slavery where it already existed. Americans did not want secession or war. The problem is, secession still happened, and the CSA wanted war.
Click to expand...

How can the CSA have wanted war if it was the War of Northern Aggression? Lincoln invaded Virginia. The vast majority of Civil War battles were with the Union invaders in Southern states. Lincoln himself wrote that he was fighting the war, not to end slavery, but to force the secessionist states back into the Union.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...erican_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater,_Year.png
825px-American_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater%2C_Year.png
 
Dutch Uncle said:
How can the CSA have wanted war if it was the War of Northern Aggression? Lincoln invaded Virginia. The vast majority of Civil War battles were with the Union invaders in Southern states. Lincoln himself wrote that he was fighting the war, not to end slavery, but to force the secessionist states back into the Union.
Click to expand...

Because they committed an act of war?
 
Crocodile said:
Occupying or trying to seize land and resources may very well be the original act of war.
Click to expand...

Space aliens may very well live among us, but I doubt it in our case. I'm not going to refight the Civil War results with you. It is what it is now but not necessarily then. What you and I are disagreeing upon is exactly the same as then: Whether or not the States have a right to their own autonomy.
 
As far as a "hot" civil war goes, it won't start with 'agent provocateurs,' particularly a small number of lone actors of that sort. A hot civil war starts when the mob takes over things like a federal armory or other government property that allows the mob access to large numbers of weapons and military equipment.
That is, when things go from protests to guerilla warfare and then to open warfare by organized opposition you get a real civil war. Some idiot smashing windows to discredit the other side isn't going to cut it.
 
I don't think Americans would stomach violence and death in the street.

The chances of riots in the street after the election are high, and yes, someone will pull a gun somewhere and cause some serious death.

But the public will respond to it with damnation, and that will be that!

Democrats and Republicans don't agree an many things anymore- BUT THEY WILL ON THIS!

No one wants a political war in the streets!

Just ask Ireland how that worked out for them.
 
Concart said:
Yeah, no thanks. I'll never get the ten minutes back, and I may lose IQ points just listening to this crap. If you have something to say on a message board, POST IT.
Click to expand...

That's why I didn't bother watching it. it looks like typical Conservatardom.
 
Into the Night said:
His use of the association fallacy is correct. It doesn't matter where he got the text from. Bulverism fallacy.
Click to expand...

It's becoming strikingly clear that Trump's more of a Fascist, than a Conservative. Nothing Conservative about Trump, not fiscally Conservative, nor socially Conservative, either.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Space aliens may very well live among us, but I doubt it in our case. I'm not going to refight the Civil War results with you. It is what it is now but not necessarily then. What you and I are disagreeing upon is exactly the same as then: Whether or not the States have a right to their own autonomy.
Click to expand...

Well, it's simple history that conquest of land and resources is an act of war. The federal government owns the land rights making it not within state rights to seize it. Just like how Federal gave lands to the Natives and the states they reside in have no jurisdiction there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top