Is civil war possible in America

[lwaters]

Actually I'm pretty optimistic about the future. I think they will be able to develop fusion which will bring the price of oil down almost nothing. I keep hearing news clips now and than about this. Only downside is all the jobs that would be lost. Also if fusion is in the near future a baby born today my see space craft that can approach the speed of light. Interesting things could happen if we don't get pulled down by the crazies.

 

[One Day...]

... I may be wrong to do so, but I am separating in my mind civil disturbances like riots from true civil war.

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1....................

To quote an earlier and different post: "We are on the losing end of a geometric curve. Population dynamics are inexorable..." (Red Leg).

If anyone has any doubt about this, and because this forum is about hunting in Africa, a re-read of the post WW II history of South Africa (ex apartheid South Africa), Botswana (ex Bechuanaland), Zimbabwe (ex Southern Rhodesia), Zambia ( ex Northern Rhodesia), etc. is most interesting; and so are the post-colonial politics and power dynamics of most multi-ethnics, multi-cultural African nations...

World renown Africa history specialist Bernard Lugan calls it the "ethnomathematics."

In the "one person, one vote" logic, it all becomes a simple game of counting the votes ... and a game of time. Regardless of the continent, the country and the issue, on one end of the issue always seems to be a group of conservative views representing the weight of the millennium of western civilization history, and reproducing at a rate lower (1.7 or so) than the replacement fertility rate of 2.1 necessary to renew their population and assumedly their culture ... and on the other end of the issue, in general terms, always seems to be a diverse group of emerging influence reproducing at a much higher rate (up to 3.1) than the replacement fertility rate of 2.1.

Immigration influxes that displace populations from high reproductive, emerging influence areas to low reproductive, conservative areas only accelerate the trend.

From there, it is indeed just mathematical, and the argument developed is neither ethnic, cultural nor religious, it is just biological and arithmetic. The "one person, one vote" system in the end means that political groups that harness the highest birth rate, and the highest immigration influx (physical immigration, or cultural immigration: think growing anti-gun culture in the US), win over political groups that suffer the lowest birth rate, and emigration drain (physical emigration, or cultural emigration: think shrinking hunting culture in the US). Period. It may take 100 years, or 50 years, or 25 years (the dynamics seem to be accelerating), but this is but an instant in time at the scale of history.

Inexorable indeed...

Counting upcoming votes may not be entirely disconnected from the current push by some constituencies for accelerated immigration...

So, the options become very simple: either become culturally (and sometimes physically) extinct - with or without the various resistance iterations, including self-satisfying talks of civil war - or adapt. The adaptation is in term of political power in the framework of this discussion, but the concept obviously also applies at much broader scale.

Adapting may imply a lot of different strategies, only one of which is sustainable in the long run: enlarging the political group (i.e. the number of supporting votes) by shifting to it part of the opposing political group. This generally implies adapting the political platform.

Apartheid was an expression of the "all or nothing" philosophy pushed to its extreme. It collapsed under the weight of demographics. History is littered with the political corpses of those who ignored demographics...

There will not be a civil war in America because the soon-to-be future winners will have the ethnomathematics on their side, which means that their favored governments will be legally elected, and military and law enforcement forces will obey them, as well they should, while the opposing diminishing minority will be branded as a bunch of Ruby Ridge zealots and Bundy standoff leftovers, and largely marginalized before being outright generally ignored by the ever growing majority.

The future of America is not in the number of AR15 owned by "the People," it is in how many people show up at the voting booths, on both sides. This does imply considering the demographic balance between historic home-grown culture and ever increasing immigrating culture(s). There is nothing really new here, the Hutu and Tutsi had the same dilemma in Rwanda recently. The difference is that they were barely 40 years from their first misunderstood foray in that strange concept of democracy, which was easy for them to swap back for a machete, while Western/American culture is almost 250 years deep in democracy (2,500 years if you count the first experiment in Athens), and not likely to let it go, including respecting, even though begrudgingly, the authority of legitimately elected governments...

I hate to say, but if we are dumb enough to go for broke in an "all or nothing" cultural war (including "all or nothing" immigration restriction policies, "all or nothing" ultra capitalism and deregulation, "all or nothing" firearms ownership, "all or nothing" hunting rights, "all or nothing" conservation issues, etc.), we will lose under the weight of demography and ethnomathematics, and we will turn over our guns sooner or later, just as our British or Australian mates did, not that they cared about them any less than we do. By the time owning an AR15 in a closet is worth 15 years in federal penitentiary, I bet you a lot of them will get turned in...

I see more future in inviting kids and undecided friends to the shooting range or taking them hunting, i.e. starting to rebuild the demographic strength of the culture we want to perpetuate.

 

[Ridge Runner]

So help me with this @cbvanb I am trying to find an example that would be apples to apples. Vietnam and Afghanistan were more guerrilla wars waged against foreign occupation (with an ethnic component to it fueling resistance). Vietnam was also really an extension of the colonial rebellion - at least from their perspective. The Spanish Civil War is the most obvious Civil conflict in this century, but it’s hard to pick the beleaguered rifleman in your example. Obviously, foreign intervention tipped scales in both directions. The Hungarian people tried to throw off the Soviet installed government, put the Russians rolled in and crushed that - along with the later Prague Spring. The most recent Chinese “awakening” probably doesn’t count because the students were unable to seriously defend themselves.

So back to this country. Who would our military be “attacking”? I mean what would be the catalyst to send the ready Brigade of the 82d to occupy ..... What? Where? For Second Amendment focused citizens let’s imagine a worst case ban on AR platform rifles and greater than 10 rd mags. Let’s further worse case it and say the ban includes a mandatory buy back by X date. Remember, none of this happens unless a law is enacted by elected representatives and it survives a Supreme Court challenge.

Do you really think the federal government will send the 82d door to door or even the sheriff's Department? Of course not. It will simply be a felony to own one. As long as it is locked away, no one will care. Keep it locked away for the zombie apocalypse. However, take it out to the boonies to shoot it and get pulled over for whatever reason and risk going to jail for a long time. Moreover, I suspect the vast majority of owners would comply - however grudgingly.

And a civil revolt over what else? 10% increase in taxes of those making more than a mil a year? Expanding Medicare to more citizens (at my age I am pretty glad to have it)? What would be the catalyst to really cause a war - hyperventilating on the web - sure - but to take a firearm and decide to shoot a fellow citizen? I think we are a long way from that.

And fully agree, no one in the military or defense establishment likes or tries to prolong conflict. Had pretty responsible jobs in both.

Vietnam and Afghanistan are related in that foreign intervention did escalate the respective conflicts.

Veitnam: US and Russia help escalate the "war" between the North and South.

NOTES:

Korea, is currently, remains a modern example.

The Congo wars of the 1960's though 1970's can also be attributed to the US/Russia "cold war".

However, the communist North having poor economics, attacked the prosperous democracy of the South. Russia assisted the North for political gain for it's (Russia) furthering communism control vs China's communism control of the area.

Politically: (Prior to Clinton) Russia and China are not "bed buddies", The US is split: If China invades Russia the US would side with Russia. If Russia invades China, the US would side with China.

Economically: When Clinton was President, and Obama expanded, China assumed most of the US debt there by tipping the scale more in favor to China.

There by the Vietnamese Civil War became a defacto shooting war between the US and Russia. Afghanistan became the second defacto shooting war between the US and Russia.

Korea, is developing into a defacto shooting war between US and China. Providing Trump and Kim don't put a stop to it.

Enough about that. If you wish, I invite that we carry this conversation on through PM's. So as not to distact others from hunting info.

As I stated originally, the military would rather shoot the all of the politians before taking up arms against their families, childhood friends and neighbors.

Law enforcement also take an oath to protect and preserve local, state laws and the Constitution of the United States.

However, should law enforcement wish to attempt to disarm the public, they would rather not, ....they "don't get paid enough to get_____" a. killed b. die c. injuried, various officers give various answers.

Those law bidding citizens who "voluntarily" give up their guns, probably didn't need one anyway. Enough of those keeping their guns will likely make enough headlines that law enforcement will reconsider going home to home knocking down doors to confiscate a person's weapons.

Actually the catalyst could be "racially"/ "ethnically", there by politically. Failure to secure our southern border, the flood of illegals coming across the border. Politicians like the muslim sisterhood in Congress now. Increase in accepting refugees (I refer to as cowards). California' s and other states with sanctuary cities.

How about a 25% tax on income for those earning between $20,000.01 and $80,000.00 annually; 30% tax on income for those earning between $80,000.01 and $150,000.00 annually; 45% tax on income for those earning over $150,000.01 less than $1,500,000.00 annually; those making over 1.5 million dollars and under $20,000.00 pay zero taxes.

 

[Mekaniks]

Civil war and civil unrest with wide spread demonstrations are two very different things. Folks are passionate about issues that are important to them and do what is necessary to effect change. March in the streets, burn government buildings, formally secede, but at the end of the day they go back to their homes, families, jobs.
IMO real civil war won't happen unless people no longer have those things and there is nothing left to lose. As long as there are homes, food, gas at the pump, family groups, and jobs that pay for it all, the vast majority people will not really risk what they have in an all out war with each other.

 

[Ridge Runner]

During my military years, We did hypothetical, theoretical, paper exercises on this subject.

Based on then current situations.

Using various variables and came up with several plausible solutions. Those solutions contained variables not in existence at that time, in regards to the US.

The Democratic party are doing everything they can to divide this country, racially, ethnically, economically, politically, and religiously.

 

[MS Hitman]

@MS Hitman . Lincoln was in office all of one month when the first shot of the US Civil War was fired. That first shot was the Confederates shelling Ft. Sumter, SC. The south wanted slavery and the Federal government was pushing to do away with it. Southern states decided to seceded from the Union and Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union.

Very late in the war, when Gen William T Sherman made his march to the sea through Georgia he then turned north in what was referred to the Carolina Campaign. BTW, Sherman was the Superintendent at LSU in 1859. Sherman had a personal dislike for South Carolina, since they had been the first state to secede and in essense started the Civil War.

This concludes this brief history lesson.

Lincoln did not care one whit over slavery, nor the condition of the slaves, you may look it up yourself. Grant stated he would resign his commission and join the South if he thought he was fighting to free the slaves, please look that up. If the war was fought to free the slaves, why did slavery continue in the northern states after Appomattox? Please read up on the Corwin Amendment, the north did not care about slavery. It was used later in the war as a means of justifying the north's actions. The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order that applied only to the southern states, and was a political tool. The buildup to war took much longer than a month, DC has never worked quickly, come on!

Thus concludes this brief history correction.

 

[Ridge Runner]

Historically: reference to journals written by Thomas Jefferson

Prior to the ratification of the Constitution of the uUnite States of America, the Colonial Continental. Congress made all further import of slaves into the colonies (USA) against the law.

A debate lasting several days insued. It was then decided that slaves,...' being ignorant and unable to support themselves could not be freed.....'.

Without reference to the exact years between 1780 and 1815, the subject of freeing all slaves was bought up both in state and federal legislation, as some slave owners took it upon themselves to free slaves.

Prior to the start of the Civil War/War Between the States, The Southern States (Confederate States) to avoid war in 1859-1860 concurred to free all slaves.

Note: the machine age was just beginning and the early machine: i.e. cotton gin, steam engines, could easily do more work in less time and money than human labor.

Civil War enthusiast and historical reenactors can provide a much better account....here the narrative.....

The North with all its factories and large population had small farms and comparatively little wealth. Rich were getting richer but not fast enough, the poor we're getting poorer and wanted more: better work and living conditions and better pay.

The South had massive amounts of farmland, southern states conducted their own beneficial foreign trade, bypassing / ignoring the federal government's right to conduct/control international trade (and collect tariffs).

To clear things up a bit: the South had a lot of large plantations, but there were a lot more small family farms than plantations.
These family farms couldn't afford the meager up keep of a slave or a hired hand, thus "family" farm.

Propaganda: (a.ka. word of mouth and newspapers). Stories of the most sadistic tryrantical slave owners were told and even some of those stories were exaggerated. Seldom, if ever, a story was told about how most slave owners treated there slaves humanely or at least as good as their best breeding stock.

As 375 Ruger Fan and MS Hitman pointed out, Seems most of the history books neglected to mention northern slave owners and how the northern slave owners treated their slaves.

Ideology:

North: wanted the Southern States to stop all foreign trade and accept the federal government's terms and compensation for their goods. Stop all interstate trade without federal government's approval and pay the federal government compensation to allow interstate trade.

South: simply declared we don't need the federal government in our pocket books. As independent States we are doing just fine and are exersing our rights to govern ourselves in our own best interest.

Now comes the question: How to justify forcing the southern states to accept federal authority.

The first thing is LIE! Had the federal government been truthful. The Civil War may have never happened or an outright ousting, possibly the disbanding, of our current federal government system.

States rights would be the norm and a much smaller federal government having limited powers would exist.

And as such the Civil War/War Between the States did occur. It should not be repeated, however, out of necessity it very well may be repeated.

 

[Red Leg]

During my military years, We did hypothetical, theoretical, paper exercises on this subject.

Based on then current situations.

Using various variables and came up with several plausible solutions. Those solutions contained variables not in existence at that time, in regards to the US.

The Democratic party are doing everything they can to divide this country, racially, ethnically, economically, politically, and religiously.

Really? Where was that? What unit? I have participated in planning exercises and war plan reviews at every level of the US Army from units I commanded (through Division), through staff college, through the war college, through annual planning reviews at DCSOPS (now Army G3). There has never been any planning for a “Civil War.” Support to National Guard planning for riot control operations (particularly Illinois and California) or for national disaster relief (particularly post Katrina), yes - but there is no plan to deal with a “Civil War” type scenario. None.

 

[tarbe]

Biology, culture and math do tell the tale.

Culture is the key variable we need to focus on in preserving the Republic.

Something as simple as inviting a fence-rider to a day at the range coupled with a primer on the Founders’ views on liberty will likely do more to secure liberty than any amount of yelling.

Math and to a lesser extent, biology, are less impressed by our efforts.

 

[Wheels]

The knowledge level of AH members as a whole, way surpasses that of the general population. Overall the critical thinking skills are superior as well. It is interesting and educational to read the posts.

America is far from a civil war. What is happening now seems to be the prelude to the turbulence of the 60's.

To me, a significant similarity now, to the buildup to the American Civil War is the state of the Democratic Party. In many ways the Democratic Party resembles the Whigs. The Whigs stood for nothing and disintegrated. The Democratic's seem to be like an amoeba that is being pulled so far left that it splits, never to regain the whole. If the Democrats loose the 2020 election, there will probably be a rebound to the center and this will cause perhaps 20+% of the party to leave and reform as some sort of green/environmental party. This would make America a true three party system and rule by a coalition partnership may become the norm. A three or more party system would be detrimental to the ability to make decisions and America would bog down into more of a bureaucratic state like many of the countries in Europe.

This is a major concern to the current state of affairs, not a civil war.

 

[Brent in Az]

One of the true "Enemies of the state" is the Mainstream media. They have gone so far into left field, it is downright scary.

It is mind blowing how many people think that Donald Trump should be impeached, simply because CNN told them so.

The media, and the Liberal group think mentality, is dangerous

 

[MS Hitman]

One of the true "Enemies of the state" is the Mainstream media. They have gone so far into left field, it is downright scary.

It is mind blowing how many people think that Donald Trump should be impeached, simply because CNN told them so.

The media, and the Liberal group think mentality, is dangerous

The media is the propaganda arm of the communist party of the United States.

 

[Brent in Az]

I got into an argument with a leftist, over at a news site, on this very topic.

He said
"We will beat you by infecting all of your computers and phones with Viruses.

I said
"Sure thing, Cupcake, we will just disconnect all of your internet connections, WIFI, and shut down the power grid"

End of argument.

 

[lwaters]

The knowledge level of AH members as a whole, way surpasses that of the general population. Overall the critical thinking skills are superior as well. It is interesting and educational to read the posts.

America is far from a civil war. What is happening now seems to be the prelude to the turbulence of the 60's.

To me, a significant similarity now, to the buildup to the American Civil War is the state of the Democratic Party. In many ways the Democratic Party resembles the Whigs. The Whigs stood for nothing and disintegrated. The Democratic's seem to be like an amoeba that is being pulled so far left that it splits, never to regain the whole. If the Democrats loose the 2020 election, there will probably be a rebound to the center and this will cause perhaps 20+% of the party to leave and reform as some sort of green/environmental party. This would make America a true three party system and rule by a coalition partnership may become the norm. A three or more party system would be detrimental to the ability to make decisions and America would bog down into more of a bureaucratic state like many of the countries in Europe.

This is a major concern to the current state of affairs, not a civil war.

I've noticed that most of the political post on Facebook are from the generation from the sixties and seventies. The young of today don't even watch the news. We watched the news back when we were young because it was our butts who were getting drafted into the military. Going to be hard fighting a civil war from the nursing home because most of the people posting about it are getting close to that status.

 

[Brent in Az]

The leftists are giddy, with the thought of us Reagan voters expiring.

 

[MS Hitman]

I've noticed that most of the political post on Facebook are from the generation from the sixties and seventies. The young of today don't even watch the news. We watched the news back when we were young because it was our butts who were getting drafted into the military. Going to be hard fighting a civil war from the nursing home because most of the people posting about it are getting close to that status.

True, but the flip side of the coin being life imprisonment is less of a deterrent with each passing year.

 

[lwaters]

The leftists are giddy, with the thought of us Reagan voters expiring.

I'm not sure there are that many people who are extreme leftist. It's just seems that way because extreme political people left or right hog all the space on Facebook.

 

[lwaters]

True, but the flip side of the coin being life imprisonment is less of a deterrent with each passing year.

That's true. I seen a post one time by a guy who said when he got old he would shoot a politician. Than he would get free health care have a nice recreation room a big library and could even get a sex change if he wanted it. Prison looked to be a better deal than a nursing home. The post disappeared pretty fast. I'm not completely sure but I do think you could keep some of your money in prison but the old nursing home will try to get it all.

 

[Brent in Az]

Extremism, is growing exponentially. Facebook, is just one of many platforms where I see it.

 

[Mekaniks]

Extremism, is growing exponentially. Facebook, is just one of many platforms where I see it.

Yep, key board warriors and folks who really don't have a clue what they are talking about. Some that just type whatever comes to mind, with no research, and move on. Many spewing hate from both sides just to stir the pot and get reactions with no accountability.