A Second U.S. Civil War: Inevitable or Impossible? | HistoryNet MENU
(CREDIT: Kurz & Allison/Library of Congress)

A Second U.S. Civil War: Inevitable or Impossible?

By Alex Zakrzewski
3/23/2016 • American History Magazine

It will soon be more than one hundred and fifty years since the end of the American Civil War and the nation is once again seemingly irreparably divided. Extreme partisan politics between Republicans and Democrats has created what the President himself has called “a poisonous political climate” that has gridlocked Washington, polarized the electorate and reduced political debate to nothing more than petty mudslinging and ad hominem attacks. Is America merely going through a troubled time or, as some right-wing commentators have been claiming for years, is the country on the verge of a second civil war?

To be clear, American politicians and pundits of all stripes love to rhetorically invoke the specter of the country’s most traumatic conflict whenever the left and right appear to be at a particular impasse. Newt Gingrich, for example, famously declared a civil war “at the ballot box” in 1987 following Robert Bork’s failed Supreme Court nomination. After Bush’s 2004 re-election victory, historian Simon Schama called the country the “Divided States of America” and observed that: “Not since the Civil War has the fault line between its two halves been so glaringly clear.” In 2013, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin warned that the Tea Party was creating a situation “every bit as dangerous as the breakup of the Union before the Civil War.”

Perhaps the most notorious allusion in recent years came from Texas Governor Rick Perry in 2009 when, in an unwise bit of political posturing, he said that his state had the legal right to secede if it chose to do so. Perry’s comments, which he quickly denied making, garnered widespread ridicule across the country, not least because secession is unquestionably illegal and unconstitutional according to Texas v. White (1869).

That is not to say, however, that there are not concerning parallels between the American political landscape today and that of the early 1860s. In recent decades, moderates on both side of the aisle have been weeded out and an undeniable “us vs. them” mentality has permeated all political spheres. Much like Lincoln’s open opposition to slavery, President Obama’s stance on moral issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion and Second Amendment rights, has only served to widen the gulf between the two sides. This growing divide has been further heightened by partisan news and new media outlets devoted to towing their respective ideological lines.

Not surprisingly, many Americans are losing faith in and even growing openly hostile towards a federal government and political system that they feel is no longer working in their best interests. According to a 2013 Pew research poll, only 19% of Americans trust the federal government and 53% openly believe it threatens their personal rights and freedoms. This antipathy towards Washington is further evident in the alarming rise – a 37% increase since 2014 alone – in antigovernment right-wing paramilitary groups like the 3 Percenters and the Oath Keepers. During the recent Oregon Standoff, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes warned authorities that his organization was preparing for “civil war” should the situation get out of hand.

But as concerning as these problems are, there are also major differences between the America of today and that of the early 1860s that preclude political divides, no matter how wide, from devolving into an internal armed conflict.

For one, the territorial battle lines between progressives and conservatives are not neatly drawn along state and regional lines like they were during the Civil War. It was only because the Confederacy encompassed such as large, rich, and above all, ideologically homogenous swathe of the country, that it was able to form its own government and raise armies to fight the North. Today, political, ethnic and religious demographics can vary tremendously from county to county, not just region to region. The last federal election results showed that the primary geographical political divide nowadays is between urban and rural communities, with the latter generally voting Republican and the former Democratic. Even then, neither side can claim such an overwhelming majority of support in an area large or distinct enough to form a powerbase for a potential rebellion against the government.

Another question to ask is that if a second civil war were to arise, what would be the central issue motivating Americans to fight and die in huge numbers? Slavery, the reason behind the Civil War, was an issue unlike any today in terms of the sweeping influence it had over the Southern way of life. It was ingrained in the Southern culture, justified by many Christian churches in the South, and it was most importantly the foundation of the Southern economy. While it is true that slave owners were a minority, the majority of the South’s wealth was based on the value of its four million slaves and the lucrative fruits of their forced labour. Most white Southerners aspired to slave ownership and all lived in fear of slave rebellion. Given how essential slavery was to the Southern way of life and identity, it is no surprise that it was considered an institution worth defending to the death. Arguably no issue in American politics today, no matter how profound, is potentially as inciting.

Finally worth considering is that the identity of the United States is no longer as inextricably linked with the concept of the Union as it was during the early 1860s. Lincoln captured the sacredness with which the bond between the states was viewed in his inaugural address when he spoke of the “mystic chords of memory” and “better nature of our angels” that he predicted would hold it together. When South Carolina seceded in December of 1860, the whole country rang with the news that the “Union is Dissolved” and restoring it proved the primary reason why Northerners enlisted to fight.

Nowadays, the notion that the nation would be dissolved if one state or region were to leave seems absurd to say the least. In a recent Fox News poll, 19 percent of respondents said that they would willingly vote certain states out of the Union if they could do so. When, following Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election, thirty states filed petitions to secede with the White House, most Americans responded with scorn and mockery rather than concern and outrage. Many political commentators, like those at the Washington Post, even ran editorials outlining the benefits to the rest of the country if certain states were to leave.

In 2012, Small Wars Journal magazine, published a fictional essay titled “Full Spectrum Operations in the Homeland: A ‘Vision’ of the Future” which sketched out a scenario for how a second U.S. Civil War might arise in the year 2016. In the piece, a small group of right-wing militants “motivated by the goals of the ‘tea party’” seize government buildings in a rural down, setting off a chain of events that culminate in a mass civil uprising. This past January, much of what the scenario predicted ended up playing out at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon. However, unlike in the paper, the militants’ cause failed to rally widespread support, public officials from both sides of the aisle condemned their actions, and the American public was barely distracted from the drama of the presidential race. The incident arguably proved that for the vast majority of Americans, the idea of armed revolt is an absurd thing of the past. Though Newt Gingrich’s ballot box civil war may be fiercer than ever, an actual violent civil war will never again happen in the United States.

25 Responses to A Second U.S. Civil War: Inevitable or Impossible?

  1. boterobob@comcast.net says:

    What I found intriguing about the portrait of the civil war battle was that American Indians appeared to be fighting on the side of the confederacy. What is the explanation for this ?

    • Jess Lewis says:

      Some American Indians, especially in Oklahoma, fought on both side, during the Civil War. Some for supplies and other booty. Some thought the Confederates might win and thus wanted representation later, in Richmond. Some were actually slave holders, and thus had a vested interest in the outcome.

    • djmc993150 says:

      The American indians generally viewed the south as the lesser of two evils; though thats not always the case. They fought against both sides. But when they did choose sides, it was generally with the South.

    • shannonlove says:

      Well, a big chuck of it was that the First Americans that did fight were in “Indian Territory” AKA Eastern Oklahoma, which ended up in the South. However, there was a “war within the war” as in much of the South as various factions within each First American Nation fought it out to decide which way they would go. A key determinate was the physical proximity of Southern forces who could provide material aid whereas North could not really do so. A few anti-Sectionist Texas tried to help but they were to small to counterbalance the Southern assistance and most of them were murdered in the wave of lynchings that swept North East Texas in ’63.

      Of course, up in the North, the Blackfoot Sioux took advantage of the conflict to attack brutally into Wisconsin and Illinois, killing over 800 civilians of all ages over half by torture. More were taken back as slaves. The depredations trigger a famous incident were Confederate prisoners of war in a camp in Chicago volunteered to got fight the Sioux (although conditions in the camp might have had something to with it.)

      There was whole spate of First American violence, almost always directed against target of opportunity, during the war. A lot of bitterness of whites against the First Americans that would spawn the “Indian Wars” of 1865-1890, arose during the war. Unfortunately, few whites could rise above the revulsion against a mode of war in which rape, enslavement and death by prolonged torture were primary modalities.

  2. Jess Lewis says:

    In my opinion, there won’t be any need for a 2nd “Civil War”. The ever increasing number of dead beats on the dole, and the never ending printing of currency and calling it money, will eventually cause the national debt to bring the country crashing down. At that point, there won’t be much of a “union” to fight for. Few people, if any, actually can visualize a trillion dollars, much less 300 trillion.

  3. djmc993150 says:

    First, you couldnt even pretend to be non-partisan in this hackish article? How is this even published with such ludicrous mischaracterizations of groups like the tea party and others.

    Further, the issue of the Civil War was states rights, which is a growing issue today as well. Slavery was the SYMPTOM not the central issue. It wasnt even a central issue to Lincoln.

    Finally, the lean on this article is pretty pathetic when you bring up abortion as some massive moral issue in this country, the fact is MOST of the country is ok with abortion on some level. Why dont you read a Gallup or any other poll before writing this garbage and making easily disproven statements?

    • Sarika says:

      I thought the article was well-written and well thought out. The writer doesn’t say that abortion is a major moral issue tearing apart the country, he just points out that it’s one of many issues currently dividing the left and the right. Also, the Civil War WAS fought over slavery, all serious historians agree on this point. Yes, there were other issues dividing North and South in the 1860s, but none was as controversial or as inciting as slavery. In it’s declaration of session, Mississippi openly stated that “a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

  4. Eric F. Frazier says:

    My criticism of this article concerns the final sentence.”Never” is a long time. Predicting the future much beyond the present is not the province of historians. Studying the past, especially the U.S. Civil War, can inform how we navigate present-day political disagreements. We must learn from but not worship the past. Our Founders used their understanding of history to innovate a new system that included mechanisms to perpetually update it. When enough people decide that system does not work, because it is changing too rapidly or too slowly, and accept violence as an alternative, then anything is possible. A second U.S. Civil War is neither inevitable nor impossible, but it is most certainly possible, and also entirely avoidable.

    • Kevin says:

      I completely agree with your sentiments. One area that I could see leading to a major uprising is gun confiscation. The root cause of a second civil war? Not sure but what I have learned from studying the past is that anything is possible when the perfect storm of dynamics fall into place.

  5. winomaster says:

    It is disheartening that there are so called historians still parroting the line that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Almost no one at the time thought that was the case. Any reading of contemporary newspapers of the time will establish that fact.

    The Civil War was fought over taxes and the fact that the South was carrying the lions share of the nations tax burden. Lincoln represented a group of special interests that wanted the government to finance “internal improvements” that would disproportionaly benefit the industrializing North at the expense of the South, who would be paying for these improvements. The South was not unreasonable to be objecting to such exploitation. Cotton was the richest sector of the US economy. It allowed the South to live a grand lifstyle of mansions and European fine goods. But they did not care for a tax system that had the nations tax burden falling so unfairly on their region.

    Lincolns winning of the presidency in a brokered convention where he did not win the most votes was the final straw. Southerners fully understood Lincolns agenda. Lincolns fixation on internal improvements can be seen in the way that the Transcontinental Railroad proceeded despite the war. Politics and the payoff for political allies superceded even the need to win the war as a first priority.

    • shannonlove says:

      Wow, are you ever wrong, but with a twist

      If you don’t think slavery lay at the heart of the Civil War, I would direct you to the Constitution of the Confederate states of America Article 4 Secs 3 wherein any new states are forbidden from not having slavery. So much for states rights. I would also direct you to the famous Cornerstone” speech of Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens

      (Southerners might have had a point about tariffs to pay for internal improvements but when you run the numbers, you’re not talking about taxes so crushing that they threatened anyone with starvation or the even a decrease in the standard of living. They were just mildly unfair, not something to kill hundreds of thousands of people over. Moreover, the Southern aristocrats themselves adopted the same, everybody-pays-but-a-few-benefit-system in their own tariff system used to fund the maintenance of ports for exporting cotton. They taxed ships on the value of their cargos (a tariff) instead the cost of getting the ship in an out of port (harbor fees.) In the harbor fee system, two identical ships, one carrying gold, the other gravel pay the same price. In a tariff system the gold ship pays way more even though the value of its cargo is utterly unconnected to cost of maintaining the harbor. This meant at the very least that southerners who did not export nevertheless helped subsidized those who did. As the war progressed, the aristocrats revealed hypocrisy after hypocrisy as they shifted the cost both in money and blood to the few yeoman farmers and poor whites.

      Really, as class just a bunch of entitled self-centered sack weasels in the main.)

      But clearly the Confederates themselves thought slavery the root cause of the conflict…

      … but while most Northerners opposed slavery they did so not primarily based on its cruelty of because it violated the premise that all men were created equal .(For the previous 20 years or so everyone from theologians to cutting edge scientist had been squirming to find a rational to define non-whites as something akin to what we would call sub-species i.e. they were human being, to a degree, but not at the level of white people and thus incapable of assuming the same role of free citizen)

      What the Northern’s feared about slavery was the kind of society it produced.

      Firstly, to put it starkly, the South looked less and less like America and more and more like Europe, central to eastern Europe at that. That is why virtually every government in Europe, all aristocratic since the Napoleonic era, sided with the Confederacy. After 1836 when Andrew Jackson required all government payments to be in species, he triggered a depression and a deflation that destroyed the already tenuous Southern middle-class. The South became a land of increasingly hereditary aristocrats, “white trash” and slaves. The latter two being, as Jefferson Davis put it, “those on the mud-sill of society” who did the grubby work so aristocrats had time to think about the important things. Most southern states had only granted universal white male suffrage in the 1850s an most of the upper classes wanted to role that back. Northerners had no wish to live in a nation dominated by an aristocracy and since the aristocracy rested on slavery, slavery had to go.

      Secondly, working class whites feared having to compete with slave labor. The leasing out of highly skilled slaves e.g. carpenters, blacksmiths etc was a big and growing business in the South, something that kept the white middle-class small, and there was no reason the system couldn’t spread.

      Of course there were abolitionist but they were mostly a bunch of self-rightous jerks, more concerned about satisfying their glutenous self-rightouness than freeing fellow human beings from bondage. Their role in the run up to and the war itself was large negative.

      But all those factors paled beside the cause of Union. The vast majority of Union soldiers fought and died because they believed it was an absolute requirement to survival of American democracy that a precedent of secession never be established. Even a lot of Confederates worried about it. Any polity based on the right of secession would start falling apart at the first strain.

      It seems strange to us today because we take Union for granted, but from the Revolutionary War onward, secession was a constant threat that occupied a lot of attention. Washington’s famous foreign entanglement speech was in context, about States getting plucked off one by one by foreign intervention in internal discords. South Carolina was ready to bolt in the Revolutionary war if the British would let them keep their slaves. Fortunately, the British commander said he didn’t have the authority.

      The Gettysburg Address, widely regarded as the greatest American political speech, doesn’t mention slavery at all, save perhaps by allusion. Rather, it’s a speech about whether a nation based on universal (male) suffrage could survive without tearing itself apart. That was what was at stake. At that point, the United States was the only Democracy left in the world. If it failed, democracy in Europe probably would have failed as well.

      And without Democracy, the end of slavery or hundred other universal human ills would never end.

      “Lincolns winning of the presidency in a brokered convention where he did not win the most votes was the final straw. “

      He won the Republican nomination in a brokered convention but was absolutely nothing unusual back in that day. Part of the support that put him over came from southern Republicans.

      No, what triggered secession was that Lincoln swept the electoral college, winning 180 votes out of 303 with his closet opponent winning only 72. Worse he did so without any electoral votes from any Southern slave state. The electoral college was configured in large part to ensure the candidates it elected had the broadest regional support. The slavecrats saw the the writing was on the wall. With a near static electoral population, faced with a rapidly growing electoral population in the North and West, they would become an electoral irrelevance henceforward. Future presidential candidates could simply ignore the South and still expect to win. Likewise, they could expect the balance in the Senate to turn against them and they’d long since lost in the House.

      A better question would be to ask why South Carolina the least democratic American state who had attempted to secede twice before, seceded in December of 1860 when Lincoln would not be inaugurated in March. Indeed, a deep desperation seems to have existed in secessionist to get as many states out of the union before Lincoln assumed office. Some states where arguably simply hijacked. Virginia “voted” to seceded only after it had be occupied by CSA troops and a secret session had excluded representatives from the pro-union north and northwest of the state. Why the hurry?

      The only plausible explanation is that they needed to push through secession while Lincoln was still a cypher in the South and while the aristocrats could still control the narrative about him. Before he assumed office, they could trick people into taking action about what Lincoln might do, whereas once he was in office people would judge him by what he did. Their worse fear was that Lincoln would enter office and do exactly what he ran on, not interfere with slavery etc. What then, would the people of the South see him as such a villain then? Probably not.

      To preserve their aristocratic privileges, they needed strike while Lincoln was still a boogyman. Even then, they had to use largely undemocratic means to so. Texas, for example, was simply taken by armed coup. Followed an “election” with no secret ballots (most voting was done by voice back then) itself preceded by quite a few disappearances and lynchings.

      • Mike says:

        Actually, your need to read. The war started out about sucession. After the war started, was slavery brought into the fry. Lincoln did not want to free the slaves, but was afraid of France and England joining the confederate s. So, 2 years after the war started did Lincoln free the slaves. When the war ended though, there were northern states who still owned slaves. Not to forget the black slave owners. Let’s tell the truth. Before, you disagree, I surges you do your research.

    • RUSRS says:

      Wow, shannonlove burned the hell out of you, winomaster. I may be 8 months late on this, but man has it brightened my day.

    • OfcShane (MGySgt USMC) says:

      On August 21st, 1858, Lincoln addresses his views on freeing the slaves to abolitionists, “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land… [but] its sudden execution is impossible. What then? Free them all, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this betters their condition? What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well know that those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted; but for their tardiness in this, I will not undertake to judge our brethren of the South. When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

      “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and Negro races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I as much as any man am in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race.” Abraham Lincoln, First Abraham Lincoln-Stephan Douglas Debate, Ottawa, Illinois, Sept. 18, 1858.

      On March 4th, 1861 Abraham Lincoln stated, “The power confided in me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using force against, or among the people anywhere.”

      “But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery? Am I to let them go on and open Charleston, (…etc.) as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?” Abraham Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, April 4, 1861.

      “If I do that, what would become of my revenue? I might as well shut up housekeeping at once!” Abraham Lincoln’s response to the suggestion by the Virginian Commissioners to abandon the custom house of Fort Sumter, April 13, 1861.

      In August 1862 Lincoln hosted a forum with black leaders and stated, “Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks,” Lincoln argued, “it would be better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”

      On August 22nd, 1862 — Abraham Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

      The Emancipation Proclamation on freed slaves in the states that were in open rebellion against Lincoln’s Union, these were: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Northern Louisiana, and Texas. Union States (New York, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois) and southern “border states” (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Southern Louisiana) who still maintained the majority of slave holdings in the US were unaffected by the proclamation. Only about 200,000 of the 300,000 southern state slaves were freed. This was a tactic to destabilize the rebel states not morally free enslaved men…

      Fort Sumter was a Union tariff collection point and that is where the war began. Lincoln’s tariff was a raise in taxes on the Congressional Morrill Tariff of 1860. In Lincoln’s early days in office the taxes went from around 3% to 18% to 37.5% to 47.06% on southern trade income. Then Lincoln forced the south to push all it’s export goods through Union trade outlets. When the southerners attempted to elude the taxes — Lincoln employed “Scott’s Great Snake,” a huge naval blockade from Maryland to the Gulf of Mexico then up through Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri — to prevent the southerners from achieving unsanctioned trade with European nations or Native American territories. The southern states then had about 82% of this tax burden forced on their trade alone giving huge tax breaks to the northern industries…

      This was very much about money and nothing about freeing slaves… Learn some history people.

  6. shannonlove says:

    Man, as a Texan, I’ve got to say the “piss us off enough and we’ll secede” joke never gets old. Yankees have been falling for that over a good century now. What non-Texans can’t seem to grasp a kind of inverted joke, one told through clinched teeth, we are collectively very angry, usually because of unfair treatment from the Northeast. It’s not even a comment directed at people outside the state, it’s an internal signal to Texans, were getting screwed over, again.

    The last time was during the 70s when the Democrat supported Wage and Price controls triggered the “Energy Crisis” and then after the controls didn’t work (they’ve been tried since antiquity) they impose a “windfall profits” tax on domestically produced oil which nearly destroyed Texas’ oil industry. It certainly, made OPEC happy though.

    Then Governor Briscoe also made the joke about seceding because of such a stupid tax that fell only on a minority of regions but which in the end hurt anyone. He got raked over the coals by the usual suspects but in the end Briscoe and everyone else from Milton Freedman, Ronald Reagan and anyone who had read a history book where proven correct. Reagan killed the tax and our supposed permanent energy crisis evaporated.

    Zakrzewski is just an ignorant bigot who doesn’t know anything about Texas but what he’s been fed by self-serving second, third and Nth hand accounts. He knows as much about Texas as “a Victorian maiden aunt knew about mating practices of head hunters of Borneo,” plus it makes him feel all smugly self-rightous and intellectually superior, so why try to learn the subtext of Perry was really saying? He’s one of those people whose mental model of Texas is frozen circa 1950 or earlier and he’s to lazy and uncurious to update his understanding of the state and unique culture. Just another bloviator with no doubt genius level IQ, but crippled by arrogance and an overarching emotional need to believe in own moral and intellectual superiority.

  7. Clifford Ishii says:

    A civil war, if it happens will be about freedom and it’s erosion by the left. I am willing to fight for freedom.

  8. Kay Auss says:

    Didn’t take but a few sentences to see the liberal slant! The following post paraphrased what I’ve seen posted many times.
    The fundamental problem is that black & white people are different.
    We differ intellectually & temperamentally.
    These differences result in permanent social incompatibility.
    All of the races are exhausted with them;
    Exhausted with their violence, social pathology’s, end less complaints and their blind racial solidarity,
    the bottomless pit of grievances, their excuses and their animosity towards white success.
    The liberal white elites explain away everything with simplistic catchall word; racism!
    They tell us that whites need to try harder, blacks need more money, more time, more programs, more opportunities but nothing changes no matter how much money is spent and that money is in the trillions!
    And let me say it’s not just the working class whites that are angry!!
    A war will not be North vs South but Blue vs Red!

  9. Sarah says:

    The article writer is forgetting the Trump election and how it seems to be provoking unrest in California.

  10. Robert Presti Jr. says:

    I think we are getting close to a civil war. I think that is why Russia helped Trump. That said I don’t know how hard they tried when the DNC hack was due to incompetence. Maybe Republicans are just smarter…

    • Robert Presti Jr. says:

      I just thought I would add the next war will be nothing like the first civil war. It will be urban warfare.

    • Michael Hook says:

      we know know that russia didnt do anything. it was the left wing that hacked their own shit to start this mess…namely the CIA.

  11. Michael Hook says:

    civil war was the federal government takings states rights away and over stepping its bounds. also, the continental rail way which that clown and coward Lincoln catered to the north and not evenly with the south.

  12. Tapirus Sbrabous says:

    US will never, ever get into a civil war again You people are too fat for that.

  13. Rob Andrews says:

    The writers apparent lack of understanding the history of the Civil war is appalling. The reasons for the first civil war was not about slavery. It’s was about economics and on how the northern states treated the southern states between the more rural southern states and the northern industry type economics. The Writer also doesn’t understand why there is such anger between the left and right. Given how powerful the media is on controlling the information and complete bias that the media has against Conservatives.

  14. Jerry Holden says:

    Civil unrest / war will come not because of pay inequity, racism, or any of the other derogatory categorizations of the left. Nor will it come due to the political differences between the right and the left. It will come because the left in ever increasing numbers view the right, especially whites, as sub-human. The logical reason to foster such an inane premise is to justify the removal of the bill of right protections from our society so that government may use force without constraint against any who oppose the official government line. We can see the beginnings of this in the Antifa, BLM, and other radical groups engaging in violence and protests against individual citizens with the intention to dehumanize, intimidate and silence their political voice. We also see that government is excessively corrupt….officials openly disregard the constitution….violate laws….regularly act against the will of the electorate to cater to campaign dollars and the “party line”. It will not be a single issue that starts the next civil war but many issues exacerbated by party self interest and government malfeasance coupled with the lack of interest in the left to protect the common person from criminal harm.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

, , , , ,

Sponsored Content: