In a word, I say no.
Reasons:
As stated above, no clear territorial divisions.

Income dependency of states and individuals for Federal money.

Only an infinitesimal percentage of the total population could support itself (even a region of the country for that matter).

The necessary local and regional communication vehicles that would be required to organize people no longer exist.

And lastly, the facisists (read the proponents of an all wise Federal government) are loosing; we, the lovers of freedom, are slowly bit surely winning. There is no need to worry about them shooting at us as they are doing a damn fine job of "shooting" at themselves.

Now a collapse, that seems to be a realistic possibility in the next few decades.

Silent

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:

quote:

Having been to several places drowning in civil war, there are stark differences: we don't have cleanly divided sides, either philosophically or geographically.

I agree with this. But as things get uglier and uglier, the potential is there for widespread violence. Not with one side against the other, but with lots of flash points across the country-- rallies, protests, marches-- that turn deadly violent.

Often in history things don't go in straight lines, so you can't just extrapolate from what is happening at the moment. But from the 1960s there has been conflict between the left and the right, one that has had it's escalations and de-escalations, twists and turns, but that, overall, has been growing in scope and intensity. Two Americas are emerging, and they are mutually hostile.

We won't have a civil war, but there's going to be some real trouble.

I don't think it is hard to imagine growing conflict between those who have, and those who believe they have a right to take from others, often in the name of social justice (the latter includes many/most of those in gov't). I can see increasing anarchy and mobocracy, particularly if/when the economy sours.

When .... not if.

"I don't think it is hard to imagine growing conflict between those who have, and those who believe they have a right to take from others, often in the name of social justice (the latter includes many/most of those in gov't). I can see increasing anarchy and mobocracy, particularly if/when the economy sours." Scoutmaster

All true but, at some point the "parent" of these human disasters will reach out and spank them. That time is not far off.

Silent

I wonder if the Civil Cold War went one step closer to becoming a hot war today,with the shooting of the Republican Congressional baseball team?

WCB raises a valid point. Certainly looks suspicious

I was going to ask this question about the pro sharia law people and the anti sharia law people .

I can not believe, in my wildest dreams that anyone born and raised in America in the last 30 years would think that there should be two sets of laws for two sets of people.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
CA, NY and PR need us to pay their bills

Gosh I hope not! I was really hoping for the PRK to go bankrupt and actually have to face the consequences of the socialist idiocy^H^H^H^H^H^H Uh, I mean utopia that we are currently enjoying. I was kinda hoping (crazily, I realize) that the splat resulting from said BK might result in a swing of the pendulum toward sanity. I know, I have always been a hopeless optimist, but it could happen...

It's getting warmer.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
I wonder if the Civil Cold War went one step closer to becoming a hot war today,with the shooting of the Republican Congressional baseball team?

While Leftists have wound up their Looney Tune followers since long before Trump, they are taking the insanity to a clichéd whole new level. But the Left does not have a monopoly on crazy. And our crazies have the potential for violence as well.

If the crazies on the Left and Right were to restrict violence to just killing each other, then it might be an example of evolution in action. Unfortunately, innocent targets will always be more tempting. Currently, political violence is almost exclusively the province of the Left. But single-sided violence is not a stable situation, and there is no indication the Left has any intention of changing or even admitting they have a problem, which is an escalating problem for all of us.

Are We Facing a New Civil War or Just Continuing the Old One?

By Ken Masugi| December 4th, 2018

The passing of George H. W. Bush might be a cause to reflect more deeply on his famous civility and its relation to the coming of a new civil war with which we are threatened today. Was his own “thousand points of light” and his son, W’s, “compassionate conservatism” the best response to the threats posed by the Clintons, John Kerry, and their allies in Congress and the bureaucracy? Or were those merely dodges serving to paper over the inevitable struggle with the worst and the most powerful yearnings of the 60s? (I credit that philosopher of the administrative state, John Marini, with this provocation.)

With all the talk of a new civil war among Americans today, we would do well first to understand the original one. In the ordinary understanding, that war was about slavery. The coming conflict is over multiculturalism and the politics of identity.

Although the multiculturalists would have us believe that the saga of American slavery was a struggle over the narrow question of race from the start, the more intelligent, more profound, and more American understanding of the conflict takes it to be a manifestation of the ancient struggle between tyranny and freedom. This is why those wrapped up in identity politics cannot embrace the notion of American exceptionalism. To them, it ignores this brutality of racism that was, they claim, at America’s heart.

Fake Civility or Brutal Truth?

So which America are we: The America of liberty-loving emancipators or the America of tyrannical masters? Civility might urge the suppression of such divisive questions, even if the dodge evokes the odious visage of Stephen Douglas’s popular sovereignty. But if we answer these questions untruthfully, however artful the dodge, of what use is investigating any other questions?

Our precedent in understanding the Bushes’ lost opportunity can be seen in Franklin Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union Address, in which FDR made this shocking comparison: “. . . if history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called ‘normalcy’ of the 1920s—then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home.” The Republicans of the 1920s, FDR charged in effect, were the equivalent of Nazis.

Would it have been so difficult for the Bushes to fire back a similar charge against the Clintons and Kerry? Should not the World War II hero Bush have been justified in returning FDR’s insult against his parents and grandparents? Should he not have taught his sons about true nature of Democratic partisanship? This was a time to confront the worst generation of Americans with perhaps its greatest generation.

America has been in a civil war for generations but we have turned a blind eye to the violence it has perpetuated, not only in literal terms, but also to the truth.

The first step in coming to a more productive understanding of where we are today is to know and understand the Civil War that no one disputes already happened.

What Civil War History Can Teach

Of the more than 1,000 books published annually on the Civil War, two promise to offer guidance for the current one: Forrest Nabors’ From Oligarchy to Republicanism: The Great Task of Reconstruction and a collection of essays, The Political Thought of the Civil War, co-edited by Alan Levine, Thomas W. Merrill, and James R. Stoner, Jr. Both books present America as a republican nation, one at least intended for self-governing citizens. Moreover, they instruct us in the nobility and justice of Lincoln and of others who supported his republican principles, defying their sophisticated opponents as well as those favoring slavery or professing indifference to it.

Nabors, making the audacious claim of fulfilling the work of his teacher, Harry V. Jaffa, details the oligarchic character of the South, and not just among those who held slaves. The majority of white Southerners did not hold slaves, but the whole of Southern society felt the ill effects of the master-slave relation. As Alexis de Tocqueville illustrated in his stunning contrast between slave state, Kentucky and free state, Ohio—America was becoming a nation of two contrasting versions of republicanism, with the Slave Power dominating national politics.

Nabors illustrates the distinction on several scores: Southern indifference toward public education, vastly larger size of farms, slaveholder dominance in Southern State legislatures, and constricted conceptions of rights (recall that Lincoln was not on the ballot in most of the slave States in the election of 1860). Withholding freedom for blacks had dire consequences for whites as well. Blacks and working class whites were under the rule of slave-holding oligarchs.

The Civil War and Reconstruction amendments did not even restore black Americans to the status of free blacks at the time of the American Revolution. For example, in most Southern states blacks were not barred from voting at the time of the Revolution. Nabors is correct to acknowledge the American founding principles of natural rights, government by consent, and constitutionalism most clearly articulated in the Declaration of Independence as the touchstone for Reconstruction. We have failed our forefathers. Nabors is correct to claim he has in many regards fleshed out the work of his teacher.

The diverse essays of The Political Thought of the Civil War, many of which appeared in American University’s formidable Political Theory Institute annual lecture series, reflect the work of 14 of the leading scholars on their subject matter, as the table of contents reflects. Their topics cover a wide range, including natural rights, jurisprudence, scientific racism, Lincoln’s rhetoric and statesmanship, Frederick Douglass, Reconstruction, and the Confederate constitution and legacy. These essays will remain for some time the leading ones on their topics.

Rather than single out particular essays, I will reiterate some leading themes. Though diverse, they all point toward the centrality of the American Founding. The question of whether natural rights is a sufficient basis for just governance is a question Americans of all generations have had to face, most vividly at the Founding and during the Civil War.

The South, with the growth of slavery, delayed, rationalized, and came to protect and even honor that original flaw. Even the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was not exempt from this temptation. But wasn’t the Civil War little more than Thomas Jefferson arguing with himself? Aren’t the requirements of perpetuating the republic something above and beyond the conditions of founding? The challenge is risible in the greatest statesman of the South—its vice president, Alexander Hamilton Stephens, who declared slavery to be its “cornerstone” and claimed the authority of modern science, a science superior to that of the Declaration. (Beware those who assert science as their foundation.)

Lincoln instead read human nature as he read Shakespeare and warned Americans that their self-interest required them to acknowledge the fundamental equality of slaves with their masters, and obliged them to treat the masters with charity as well. This logic won over Frederick Douglass, among others. Lincoln’s strategy with the Emancipation Proclamation remains a model of statesmanship. While the military order freed no slaves under Union control, once it was done the need to return to the founding was clear as was the need for the 13th Amendment.

Lincolnian statesmanship, which recognized the political necessity as well as the nobility of charity, was sorely lacking during Reconstruction. Behind the book, as one of the editors noted in a panel on the volume, loomed Harry V. Jaffa, who was likewise the inspiration for Nabors’ work.

Yet both of these outstanding books fall short in different ways of Jaffa’s emphasis on Calhoun, not only as the South’s defender of slavery but as well the assailant of the Founders’ thought in his own books on political theory. In that sense, Calhoun emerges as a major inspiration for Progressivism. How someone who took pride in racial slavery and ridiculed the Declaration inspired Progressivism is a long story, but Americans today need to be reminded of it. This collection of Harry Jaffa essays, due out shortly, may help Americans to understand their duty.

The Long Game of the Civil War

The South may have lost the battles, but its leading theorist imposed “the yoke of its own thought” on this nation in the form of Progressivism. Natural rights has lost its hold on Americans. Equality is about socialism. Government is unlimited in its powers—unless used in support of traditional morality. Thus, the “reconstruction” in Nabors’ subtitle threatens to become John Dewey’s Reconstruction in Philosophy, that is, a perpetual, growing, ultimately postmodern disconnection from the American founding.

Such a “reconstruction,” changing America beyond recognition, is behind the party of the Clintons and Kerry, and much worse in today’s “fundamental transformation.” It is not enough to be anti-oligarchic; tyrants and mob rule are perfectly capable of mustering that sentiment as well, and oligarchs may come in many different flavors. To be republican is more difficult. But this is America’s often unpleasant task.

Photo Credit: Engraving From 1881 Commemorating The Surrender Of Robert E. Lee To Ulysses S. Grant Marking The End Of The American Civil War

https://amgreatness.com/2018/1...tinuing-the-old-one/

NY, CA, IL, MA NJ, TX and a few other are funding the rest of the country.

https://www.moneytips.com/is-y...r-or-a-net-taker/356

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
CA, NY and PR need us to pay their bills

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
NY, CA, IL, MA NJ, TX and a few other are funding the rest of the country.

https://www.moneytips.com/is-y...r-or-a-net-taker/356

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
CA, NY and PR need us to pay their bills

That is completely distorted and provides a false narrative. It credits the income and FICA paid from wage earners in the state where they are working, say like California, and then debits the benefit payments against the state where they move to after retirement. So NJ gets to take credit for the taxes paid in, while Florida gets the hit for the retirement benefits paid out.

On short, that article is meaningless bullshit.

Yeah all those retired people from NY flood down to FL for tax free living.

I think we have a lot of people in our government and those who actually control and influence those who are elected to want a collapse of our government. Look at the number of millionaires who backed, with millions of dollars, the democrat party in this last election.
It seems the elite of the democrat party are openly causing the collapse. Don't think the elite of the republican party aren't with them.
Also, these people are openly against personal gun ownership. This and open borders are simply used to further this mission.
Why trying for a collapse? Once accomplished the governors will call for the second_there's only been the one__constitutional convention. The result will be a parliamentary form. Notice how many democrats complain how they win the most votes but due to our form of government, republic, the electoral votes win.
In a parliamentary form one party is elected by popular vote. You vote in or out the entire party.
You won't have a "2nd Amendment" and states. Few today (age group here) understand what a "State" is. Right now...there's a State funeral taking place. Italy is a state as is Germany and France.
Each of our states are similar. This is what a republic is. This is what our founding fathers gave us!
On December 7, 1941 each of our states had it's own military. Not after 1945. We used to go to war by each state furnishing it's army. During the War of 1812...New Hampshire bowed out. They weren't going to fight their relatives and friends in Quebec.
When the parliamentary form of government is being voted on___I feel two states will go independent. Texas for sure. The second one? Among about three possibles. Toss up.
I don't want to see the end of my country. (Being
87 years old!)
However, for a country of over 300 million and a occupied land mass the size of ours___our constitution has been cracking for decades. Every state is dependent on federal dollars. Some more some less. That has weakened every one of our states. (None has a state controlled military any more. Harry Truman had a nickname, Captain Harry. He was a artillery batter commander in WW I. He was never in the U.S. army. He was a member of a Missouri State Guard. Still not understanding what a state is?
An easy way. Check the military units during our Civil War. In the south it's the War Between the States. All of those state military units. Lee commanded the "Army of Northern Virginia".
Without going into detail here....a close friend of mine was in the Johnson White House. He told me..."When I was in the White House we almost lost our government twice."
Look at what's taking place now!
We'r close to collapse. ...rather than a Civil War.
Stay safe
Poli Viejo

We are in a civil cold war.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
We are in a civil cold war.

A term worth remembering and repeating.

quote:

We're close to collapse. ...rather than a Civil War.
Stay safe

An economic collapse will bring it to a head.
The "Civil War" will basically be between those who want freedom and those who want equality.
Natural rights has lost its hold on Americans. Equality is about socialism.

An economic collapse will cause the end of welfare as we know it. From there, it will be a fight between those who want equality, in the form of full-blown socialism and those of us who want freedom from big government ruling our lives.

I’ll just keep cleaning my rifles and keep an eye on the news....

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
We are in a civil cold war.

I would think that it is more of a cold (sometimes heated) un-Civil War, instead of a civil cold war.