Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Conversation)   In 5 out of 6 disputed elections, America turned out ok, but the 6th in 1860 led directly to the CIVIL WAR   (theconversation.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, President of the United States, Democracy, Vice President of the United States, contested election, results of the election, George W. Bush, United States, Elections  
•       •       •

868 clicks; posted to Politics » and Main » on 01 Sep 2020 at 3:30 PM (8 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



67 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-01 1:21:37 PM  
Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....
 
2020-09-01 1:29:44 PM  
The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.


Ask any freed slave if this turned out ok for them.
 
2020-09-01 1:37:19 PM  

Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.


Well said. The Civil War taught us to be a unified nation, not just a bunch of quasi-nation-states banding together. But like you said, there were two sides and that makes conflicts a little easier to solve (let's set aside the Western partisans and other guerillas for simplicity).

Today we have like, 10 sides spread out across every region. There can't be a winner and a loser, followed by a reconciliation. It's going to be infinite warfare, just like Jefferson Davis would have wanted back then. Thankfully people like Robert E. Lee and Joe Johnston knew better than to subject either side to that protracted misery.
 
2020-09-01 1:49:43 PM  
Civil wars don't necessarily require sides to be neatly geographically distributed.
external-preview.redd.itView Full Size

images.slideplayer.comView Full Size

users.erols.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 3:31:29 PM  
The American Civil War was not as geographically homogenous as we think it was 160 years on. In reality, New York City had riots against union drafts, the Ohio Valley was not 100% Union, Appalachia was very anti-Confederate (which is how we got West Virginia), and Germans in Texas were pro-Union.

Don't think that because the current conflict is not as geographically well-defined that this means we are safe from this.

We have a president who believes it is in his own best interest to encourage more violence and he has several major figures in his party and in the media who likewise see additional violence as a positive.

More protesters are going to be armed. More violence is probably going to happen.

If Trump is re-elected, I fully expect there to be either a civil war or peaceful split-up of the country. If that happens, the Left and a large chunk of moderates are going to assume that elections are illegitimate. Trump is likely going to go full bore pro-violence because why wouldn't he? Particularly if he assumes it got him re-elected.

If Trump loses in a squeaker, his own fascists will view the election as illegitimate, encouraged by Trump. They are likely to engage in violence and to escalate it, at least until January 20th. In this scenario, I don't see civil war or secession but it's going to be dicey for a bit.

For us to avoid mass escalation now, Trump has to lose in a landslide.

If you're wondering how this will escalate, imagine that BLM holds a funeral for one of the people killed by a right wing goon, publicly, attended by major BLM spokespeople. Right wing scum will definitely shoot up the funeral (and if they don't this one they will shoot up the next one). Then when a Proud Boy gets shot and the right wing has a funeral, you think the Left won't reciprocate?

It will become a running ongoing gunfight, escalating until it becomes a near civil war.

There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes spelled out above:

1. The deaths of right wingers cause them to take a step back and realize that they aren't the only ones with guns and the willingness to use them, leading to a de-escalation on the right. This is what prevented South Africa from imploding in 1992. If trump is in charge, I don't see this happening though.

2. A huge bloodbath ensues at a protest, shocking the nation into sanity, and enough people come out opposing violence and escalation that the fever dissipates. Doubtful.

3. A minor celebrity supporting one side or the other is assassinated, shocking the nation, etc. or this might just escalate the problem further.

Fun times.

I could see if Trump is re-elected and an all-out civil war is in the offing, since Trump is fundamentally a coward, he might finally realize that he himself is vulnerable, but betting on trump coming to understand anything is a losing bet.

And by the time trump would even be capable of understanding he has pushed it too far it would likely be too late.

In crises like this, aka Fourth Turnings if you are familiar with that mostly-discredited theory, nations end up uniting against a common threat (Felipe II, Napoleon, Hitler, etc) or they separate forever.

Civil wars usually end not in a split country (Korea  is a unique case where everyone was backing a side) but in one side winning and crushing the other side. The English, Irish, American, Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, Greek, Syrian, Portuguese, Mexican, Vietnamese, Nepalese, Angolan civil wars all ended in crushing victories. There are many others.
 
2020-09-01 3:32:40 PM  
Meanwhile 99% of the country is in denial that Putin is using Trump and the GOP to destroy the US from within with a civil war and the stupid ass cannon fodder will happily comply.

Its much cheaper to fund your enemies to destroy themselves than to fund an army to fight your enemy when your enemy GDP is 20 times yours.

Russia should be farking annihilated after Biden is done dealing with the useful traitors.
 
2020-09-01 3:34:04 PM  
Putin would love a second US Civil War. His investment in Dolt45 would have paid off big.
 
2020-09-01 3:34:09 PM  
The hanging chads never happened and the Middle East is peachy because of it.
 
2020-09-01 3:34:33 PM  

Nadie_AZ: The 1876 election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel Tilden was contested because several Southern states failed to clearly certify a winner. This was resolved through inter-party negotiation conducted by an Electoral Commission established by Congress. While Hayes would become president, concessions were given to the South that effectively ended Reconstruction.


Ask any freed slave if this turned out ok for them.


Yup giving concessions to the south was like giving concessions to nazi germany with hitler still in power by saying yeah you can keep those death camps you have for the jews, no biggie.

NEVER FARKING DO CONCESSIONS WITH EVIL IDEOLOGIES. NEVER.
 
2020-09-01 3:36:25 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: In reality, New York City had riots against union drafts,


They were protesting the drafts, but they were not also flying the Stars and Bars from City Hall.  There is a difference between "I don't want to fight in the war" and "I need to own a Negro to feel like a man".  NYC was not Richmond North.
 
2020-09-01 3:37:17 PM  
Is anyone else tired?
 
2020-09-01 3:38:09 PM  

I Ate Shergar: Civil wars don't necessarily require sides to be neatly geographically distributed.
[external-preview.redd.it image 540x958]
[images.slideplayer.com image 850x637]
[users.erols.com image 405x295] [View Full Size image _x_]


I would argue the English Civil War is more apposite

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English​_​Civil_War
 
2020-09-01 3:38:23 PM  
Since the dividing lines will be chaotic, on a per neighborhood block basis, i will strike an alliance with my nearest neighbor. I will exchange food for ammo. We'll work together to secure a peace deal with Edna, about four houses up. That'll help diminish roving right wing gangs from the north, while the neighbor and i launch an attack across the street at dawn.
 
2020-09-01 3:38:26 PM  
Playing percentages in real time is tricky.  If the coin turns up heads 100 times, the chance of it being tails on the 101st throw is still 1 in 2.   There is a movement that has been promoting violence via fear for over 50 years and has been loading up on weapons.   They are currently allied with the police and an Executive branch run by the Trump crime family.  Work those numbers out.

It looks like there's going to be violence either way, whether it's a pogrom or a purge.
 
2020-09-01 3:38:44 PM  
 The election of 1860 wasn't disputed. The South just didn't like the result.
 
2020-09-01 3:39:07 PM  

Samfucious: Is anyone else tired?


Hell yes

And the necessity of considering purchasing firearms is not improving my mood
 
2020-09-01 3:39:07 PM  
The southern slave plantation aristocracy decided to secede in 1860 because the loss of the Presidency, to them, sealed their political fate.  They lost the ability to control the House in the 1840s, then the Senate in the 1850s.  If slave states could not hold a majority in the Senate or the Presidency, there was no way to stop the gradual replacement of pro-slavery justices.  The slave owners were soon to be a minority, which meant eventually slavery would be boxed in and their cushy lifestyle would not be sustainable.

Really, the slave-state politicians doomed themselves when they walked out of the 1860 Democratic Convention.
 
2020-09-01 3:39:21 PM  
Wow. No. President Cheney sucked. Allowing his pals in Saudi Arabia to attack us so he could get his war on with Iraq is why we're in this current dystopian hellscape.

/ GOP scum then and now.
 
2020-09-01 3:39:40 PM  

chuggernaught: Putin would love a second US Civil War. His investment in Dolt45 would have paid off big.


That coont is due a .45 calibre headache.
 
2020-09-01 3:40:24 PM  
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-01 3:40:25 PM  
We're probably okay so long as people don't start physically beating each other with sticks on the senate floor.
 
2020-09-01 3:40:35 PM  
As a liberal white guy, I win either way!

/jk
 
2020-09-01 3:41:00 PM  
The author shines away a few important facts he left out.

1. 1800. While the majority of the country accepted the outcome, let's not forget that Burr attempted to raise an army for a coup.

2. 1824. Jackson lost but he and his supporters were incensed and he won in a landslide four years later.

Both 1800 and 1824 were also in an era where MOST PEOPLE COULD NOT VOTE AT ALL. Therefore the issue of whether the elections were considered legitimate or not is a bit moot.

3. 1876. The author fails to note this did not escalate because the parties did a deal deal.

Which screwed over Black Americans, of course.

4. 1960 and 2000: neither of these elections took place after an election widely held as illegitimate itself (2016), took place during extensive civil unrest, took place during a pandemic, or involved a president and party who were deliberately stoking the fires of violence for political gain.
 
2020-09-01 3:41:22 PM  

phalamir: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: In reality, New York City had riots against union drafts,

They were protesting the drafts, but they were not also flying the Stars and Bars from City Hall.  There is a difference between "I don't want to fight in the war" and "I need to own a Negro to feel like a man".  NYC was not Richmond North.


Fair.
 
2020-09-01 3:42:28 PM  

BeansNfranks: Since the dividing lines will be chaotic, on a per neighborhood block basis, i will strike an alliance with my nearest neighbor. I will exchange food for ammo. We'll work together to secure a peace deal with Edna, about four houses up. That'll help diminish roving right wing gangs from the north, while the neighbor and i launch an attack across the street at dawn.


This is why you should get to know your neighbors early.  Figure out who will be donating their house to the revolution, versus allies you can count on.
 
2020-09-01 3:43:23 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: For us to avoid mass escalation now, Trump has to lose in a landslide.


Not just that. If you dont destroy the right wing propaganda machine, you'll get nowhere because they'll continue to brainwash millions of people to their bullshiat and incite them to violence.

That includes : facebook, twitter, 4chan, fox news, OAN, russia today, sputnik, alex jones, about every right wing talk radio station. Free speech is protected but all they do is use it to destroy the country from the inside, they push hate and violence 24/7. That shiat should be illegal.
 
2020-09-01 3:45:03 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...


I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.
 
2020-09-01 3:45:12 PM  

lolmao500: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: For us to avoid mass escalation now, Trump has to lose in a landslide.

Not just that. If you dont destroy the right wing propaganda machine, you'll get nowhere because they'll continue to brainwash millions of people to their bullshiat and incite them to violence.

That includes : facebook, twitter, 4chan, fox news, OAN, russia today, sputnik, alex jones, about every right wing talk radio station. Free speech is protected but all they do is use it to destroy the country from the inside, they push hate and violence 24/7. That shiat should be illegal.


Preaching to the choir, man. I wish we had German speech laws. Freedom of speech should not be extended to include anti-science, conspiracy theories, or hate speech.
 
2020-09-01 3:45:48 PM  

weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...

I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.


Do you really see any of those websites doing any of that voluntarily?
 
2020-09-01 3:46:22 PM  

Peter Weyland: We're probably okay so long as people don't start physically beating each other with sticks on the senate floor.


Take one look at Ted Cruz's smug face and tell me that's not an inevitability.
 
2020-09-01 3:46:35 PM  
Actually, you're wrong.

The most important election of the new American post-slavery paradigm was disputed. Google "Compromise of 1877" for your own education.
 
2020-09-01 3:49:49 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...

I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.

Do you really see any of those websites doing any of that voluntarily?


100% no.  Twitter is your best shot and even that I doubt.  Meanwhile, Google discarded 'don't be evil' like a decade ago and Mark Zuckerburg is clearly supportive of the right-wing.  Its not clear if its sincerely held beliefs or *Cash*Rules*Everything*Around*Me* but either way, he is pro-Trump.
 
2020-09-01 3:50:51 PM  

weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...

I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.

Do you really see any of those websites doing any of that voluntarily?

100% no.  Twitter is your best shot and even that I doubt.  Meanwhile, Google discarded 'don't be evil' like a decade ago and Mark Zuckerburg is clearly supportive of the right-wing.  Its not clear if its sincerely held beliefs or *Cash*Rules*Everything*Around*Me* but either way, he is pro-Trump.


Definitely the latter, plus a desire to avoid regulation
 
2020-09-01 3:52:24 PM  

Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...

I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.

Do you really see any of those websites doing any of that voluntarily?


Yup not a chance of it happening. Zuck supports fascists, we've seen him time and time again support their shiat, hell, he help DUTERTE get elected! Duterte FFS!

Jack at twitter wont do shiat because it brings him money.

Google wont do it because they rely on billions of $$ from the gov in contracts and they dont want trump against them.

Never gonna happen.
 
2020-09-01 3:54:08 PM  

lolmao500: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: weddingsinger: Visual Howlaround Title Sequence: There's a few ways civil war or secession can still be derailed, apart from the electoral outcomes s ...

I have a way to deescalate for you and it only requires getting like three people to act:

1st: Twitter removes "trending topics" so right-wing extremists, Russians, etc can no longer game topics and push their narrative to a wider audience.  It would also be good if they de-platformed more radicals and dismantled botnets.

2nd: YouTube needs to act to remove white supremacists from their platform, stop recommended right-wing content in their suggestions.  Currently watching Joe Rogan usually means YouTube pushes Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Stefan Molyneux types at you, which then becomes your normal and then they start pushing more extreme content at you

3rd:  Facebook needs to do the same as Twitter, ban right-wing extremists, Russians, botnets (Shapiro's Daily Caller is well known to use coordinated efforts to boost their content, which is against Facebook TOS, but they do nothing.

Reducing the imprint of extremist outreach on those three platforms alone would probably do everything we need to calm things down.

It would also help if the media did a better job of framing stories and stop repeating white supremacist talking points as if they are a neutral view, regardless of whether its coming from the Proud Boys, 3%ers, or the President.

Do you really see any of those websites doing any of that voluntarily?

Yup not a chance of it happening. Zuck supports fascists, we've seen him time and time again support their shiat, hell, he help DUTERTE get elected! Duterte FFS!

Jack at twitter wont do shiat because it brings him money.

Google wont do it because they rely on billions of $$ from the gov in contracts and they dont want trump against them.

Never gonna happen.


Plus the ever-present threat of an anti-trust lawsuit. and with this DOJ that's gonna go badly for them
 
2020-09-01 3:54:55 PM  
In the 5 that turned out ok politicians were not advocating armed militants to counter protest. I think this 7th time mirrors the bad one.
 
2020-09-01 3:55:02 PM  
How cute. He thinks that the law still matters. He must have just woken up from hibernation.
 
2020-09-01 3:57:43 PM  
Are you sure we aren't there yet? Perhaps not widely noticible scale with boom boom pows, there's definitely a war on civility in our country at present moment.
 
2020-09-01 3:58:09 PM  
I'll say it again.
The guys with the guns supporting Trump think that they're patriots they same way Timothy McVeigh did.
Let's call them out on it. CONSTANTLY.
 
2020-09-01 3:58:18 PM  
The difference is that in that war, a huge industry - the South's only real industry, was on the line.
 
2020-09-01 3:58:34 PM  

Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....


I think we are already in a state of quasi-civil war in this country and the election will be the trigger point for full blown chaos.
 
2020-09-01 3:59:48 PM  
Also the election of 1824 wasn't disputed - everyone agreed Jackson won both the popular vote and the most electoral votes but fell short of a majority.
 
2020-09-01 3:59:55 PM  

Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....


I believe it'll be an assault akin to a battery of terrorist attacks from nation-less semi-affiliated groups. Like Al Queda but almost all white. Albino Al Queda.
 
2020-09-01 4:00:14 PM  

Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....


Not a History major, but my belief is it will be much like "theTroubles" in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. Bombings, terror attacks, that sort of crap.
 
2020-09-01 4:01:11 PM  
Ok guys.. civil war starts in 3 weeks. If you fight for equality, same thing as last time, you go north. If you fight for subjugation you go south.
 
2020-09-01 4:02:15 PM  

Dr. DJ Duckhunt: Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....

I believe it'll be an assault akin to a battery of terrorist attacks from nation-less semi-affiliated groups. Like Al Queda but almost all white. Albino Al Queda.


It'll be a mix of far right terrorism and far left terrorism.
 
2020-09-01 4:06:48 PM  
Starting with the colonies and continuing through the compromise in the Constitution that allowed outlawing the importing of people to enslave after 1808 - slavery was, as many (including de Tocqueville, who almost predicted the exact year the Civil War would start; in Democracy in America, which is a great read) saw at the time, going to tear the country apart.

The contested election was the spark that lit the fuse (as the saying goes), but the conditions were already ripe for at least fourscore and seven years.

// hmmm, three elections in 20 years where the person who got the most votes got to retire early, all benefiting the same party
// and all the while that same party winning a smaller share of the Congressional vote, yet winning more seats
// I'm sure no one really cares about how their representation affects their taxation anyway...
 
2020-09-01 4:06:54 PM  

Snazzy1: Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....

Not a History major, but my belief is it will be much like "theTroubles" in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. Bombings, terror attacks, that sort of crap.


A friend was comparing it to the "Years of Lead" in Italy the other day.
 
2020-09-01 4:12:03 PM  

Snazzy1: Private_Citizen: Seems to me that the contested election of 1860 led to civil war in part because handy geographic divisions allowed the south to form a cohesive rebellion (the Confederacy). The author seems to believe that the more fractal geographic divisions of today will prevent a second civil war.

I think it just means that if it comes to blows, it won't be civil war between two sides, it will be distributed anarchy.

However, I would happily listen to more educated History Farkers who might be able to shine a Rae or Two of reason on the subject....

Not a History major, but my belief is it will be much like "theTroubles" in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants. Bombings, terror attacks, that sort of crap.


So an "irregular" or "low-key" civil war.
 
2020-09-01 4:13:38 PM  

notgonnatellu: Are you sure we aren't there yet? Perhaps not widely noticible scale with boom boom pows, there's definitely a war on civility in our country at present moment.


No I'm not sure we aren't there yet.
 
Displayed 50 of 67 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.