America's second Civil War,

Crazy Chainsaw

Philosopher
Crazy Chainsaw
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
8,339
January 6th is now History so how do you think it will be written about in the History books, it's the closets we have come to Civil War since 1865?
 
I think that will depend entirely on what comes next.

If Jan 6th and the result from the Commission investigation and the many sentences for insurrectionists is that no one like Trump ever gets into the White House again, and the GOP eats itself for a while, then Jan 6th will go down in history as another example on how strong US democracy is (which would be the wrong lesson).
 
If a new civil war does break out, then Jan 6 will be its "Bleeding Kansas". Violent acts by non-governmental forces that didn't immediately cause the war, but certainly set the tone for the escalations that followed.
 
I think the closest we've come to civil war since 1865 was probably in 1957, when the President deployed the 101st Airborne division to Arkansas to enforce school desegregation.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
That's nonsense
Click to expand...

It's federal troops deployed domestically to contest local or state policy by threat of force. That's pretty civil-warlike in my book. Much more so than a protest in the capital. There was more death and destruction arising from the wave of BLM protests the year before. Which, honestly, the wave of BLM protests were probably closer to civil war than the Jan 6th thing. Just in terms of the scope of the violence and the amount of people involved.
 
theprestige said:
It's federal troops deployed domestically to contest local or state policy by threat of force. That's pretty civil-warlike in my book. Much more so than a protest in the capital. There was more death and destruction arising from the wave of BLM protests the year before. Which, honestly, the wave of BLM protests were probably closer to civil war than the Jan 6th thing. Just in terms of the scope of the violence and the amount of people involved.
Click to expand...

you are wrong, from a pure historical POV.

the deployment of troops to enforce Federal Law surely created a lot of but-hurt, but it was strengthening the Union, not splitting it.

What Jan 6 was was an violent attempt to destroy the democratic principle of the US - and it caused about as many injured cops in one afternoon as all BLM protests combined, and more dead cops afterwards.

Right-wingers are perfectly fine with Federal Troops doing whatever they want without warrants, as evidenced by their support for ICE, border patrols and DHS.
 
Didn't we have a small area of Seattle secede from the union a couple years back?
 
Its worth noting that there were political bombings in the US on the order of once a week through most of the 70s. Sure, this may be the start of something bigger but political violence has been a much more significant problem in the the relatively recent past.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
you are wrong, from a pure historical POV.

the deployment of troops to enforce Federal Law surely created a lot of but-hurt, but it was strengthening the Union, not splitting it.
Click to expand...
And deploying federal troops in Southern States in 1865-67 ultimately strengthened the union. Civil war and strengthening the union aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes it's necessary to engage in the former, to achieve the latter.

The deployment of federal troops to override state policy with the naked threat of force is pretty significant, in my opinion. It's a lot closer to what civil war actually is.

What Jan 6 was was an violent attempt to destroy the democratic principle of the US - and it caused about as many injured cops in one afternoon as all BLM protests combined, and more dead cops afterwards.
Click to expand...
You honestly believe they were anywhere near overthrowing the government? Do you believe Occupy Wall Street was close to demolishing the American banking system? Do you believe the CHOP in Seattle really did secede from the Union? Maybe you think Waco or Ruby Ridge was the closest we've actually gotten to civil war, in the last hundred years or so?

Honestly, the number of states flouting federal marijuana prohibitions is probably closer in spirit to an actual civil war, than what happened on Jan 6th.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
Its worth noting that there were political bombings in the US on the order of once a week through most of the 70s. Sure, this may be the start of something bigger but political violence has been a much more significant problem in the the relatively recent past.
Click to expand...

Point is the Weatherman and other groups bombings in the 70's did not have the support of any mainstream politicians..even other radicals were quick to condemn them.Jan 6th had backing from powerful people in one of the two major parties.
Huge difference.
 
theprestige said:
And deploying federal troops in Southern States in 1865-67 ultimately strengthened the union. Civil war and strengthening the union aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes it's necessary to engage in the former, to achieve the latter.

The deployment of federal troops to override state policy with the naked threat of force is pretty significant, in my opinion. It's a lot closer to what civil war actually is.


You honestly believe they were anywhere near overthrowing the government? Do you believe Occupy Wall Street was close to demolishing the American banking system? Do you believe the CHOP in Seattle really did secede from the Union? Maybe you think Waco or Ruby Ridge was the closest we've actually gotten to civil war, in the last hundred years or so?

Honestly, the number of states flouting federal marijuana prohibitions is probably closer in spirit to an actual civil war, than what happened on Jan 6th.
Click to expand...

What BS.
More like what happened with Prohibition; there was no question of overthrowing the government, just ingoring a specific law considered unjust.
 
ahhell said:
Its worth noting that there were political bombings in the US on the order of once a week through most of the 70s. Sure, this may be the start of something bigger but political violence has been a much more significant problem in the the relatively recent past.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

Once a week? No way. There were a couple in the 60s.


It will be interesting to see how Drumpf's cult reacts to criminal charges about the same time a large number of pro-choice folks react to the SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade.
 
prestige, you willfully conflate generic political violence with insurrection - they are very obviously not the same, no matter how hard you want to convince yourself and others.

It is perfectly normal for violent members to exist at extreme of any political spectrum; in fact, it is dangerous when one side is much more prone to violence, and/or one side's violence is much more protected by State Actors than the other.

This is also part of the democratic process: because there will always be a fringe, we need the fringe of one side to balance the fringe of the others.

What makes January 6th different is that it wasn't the fringe that tried and nearly succeeded in overthrowing the result of an election, but one of the two parties of the country, using the fringe as tools to assist the attempt.

You are blinded by ideology if you can't tell the difference.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
prestige, you willfully conflate generic political violence with insurrection - they are very obviously not the same, no matter how hard you want to convince yourself and others.

It is perfectly normal for violent members to exist at extreme of any political spectrum; in fact, it is dangerous when one side is much more prone to violence, and/or one side's violence is much more protected by State Actors than the other.

This is also part of the democratic process: because there will always be a fringe, we need the fringe of one side to balance the fringe of the others.

What makes January 6th different is that it wasn't the fringe that tried and nearly succeeded in overthrowing the result of an election, but one of the two parties of the country, using the fringe as tools to assist the attempt.

You are blinded by ideology if you can't tell the difference.
Click to expand...

My Take on it, is if BLM and Antifa had Met the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers in DC on the 6th, and both groups were Armed to the Max they could Arm.
Capitol police would be overwhelmed, and you would have had many dead lawmakers on the hill. The fact BLM chose the not to take part in Trump's Insurrection saved our democracy from it's second Civil War, and open armed conflict in the streets.
It helped Stewart Rhodes is an idiot, he thought by capturing a building he could stop democracy, the only thing Stewart could ever have accomplished is his own destruction, the government of the United States is not in the Capitol Building itself, but rests with the people themselves. The only way an insurrection could have worked is with support of the Millitary and the people of the United States.
Stewart Told me Back in 2008 when we were in a Hypothesis discussion of an Insurrection against Barack Obama, on the Ron Paul sub forum of the MySpace Republican Forum, Once I have Captured the Capitol, I have Captured the Goverment, I replied Bull ◊◊◊◊, you will only destroy Yourself the Government of the United States rests not in a building but in the hearts of it's people. As long as they will fight against a violent Insurrection or Enemy to the Constitution America will be Free.
 
theprestige said:
It's federal troops deployed domestically to contest local or state policy by threat of force. That's pretty civil-warlike in my book. Much more so than a protest in the capital. There was more death and destruction arising from the wave of BLM protests the year before. Which, honestly, the wave of BLM protests were probably closer to civil war than the Jan 6th thing. Just in terms of the scope of the violence and the amount of people involved.
Click to expand...

Still utter nonsense!
 
And from the POV of another it might be the number of armed people inside the government building during a critical time in the election process.
Ones that forced thier way in at a time no tours would have been scheduled. People that had erected a gallow in the lawn and were looking to hang certain individuals.

The fact tragedy had been averted to prevent many deaths is a good thing.
 
8enotto said:
And from the POV of another it might be the number of armed people inside the government building during a critical time in the election process.
Ones that forced thier way in at a time no tours would have been scheduled. People that had erected a gallow in the lawn and were looking to hang certain individuals.

The fact tragedy had been averted to prevent many deaths is a good thing.
Click to expand...


The Fact people Knew the way to win this Civil War by staying Home and being Peaceful and Trusting the wisdom of the American people, should be applauded though the ages and Remembered as long as the Republic stands.
 
Horatius said:
If a new civil war does break out, then Jan 6 will be its "Bleeding Kansas". Violent acts by non-governmental forces that didn't immediately cause the war, but certainly set the tone for the escalations that followed.
Click to expand...

That's what I've been thinking.

In the recent past we have had the Jan 6 event, the Cliven Bundy Bunkerville standoff, the Ammon Bundy Malheur standoff.

In the future we might have more events like those, all with the potential to escalate into some pretty significant violence. And if they do go violent, then things might start to spiral.

Brainster said:
Didn't we have a small area of Seattle secede from the union a couple years back?
Click to expand...

No, we didn't. A city lost some control of a few blocks to protesters who wanted change, but in no way promoted secession from the U.S. That was just the usual right-wing disinfo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom