Summary: Civil war is coming, as political violence inevitably escalates. It’s another scary story of the kind we love so much! Before we panic, let’s look at the facts.
It’s time for another thrilling doomster story. But today’s scary tale is politically useful. Stand by for amnesia as our elites exploit our fear to stampede us like cattle into the pens.
“Is America Headed for a New Kind of Civil War?”
by Robin Wright in the New Yorker.
Feel the clickbait excitement of the opening. Red emphasis added!
“A day after the brawling and racist brutality and deaths in Virginia, Governor Terry McAuliffe asked, ‘How did we get to this place?’ The more relevant question after Charlottesville — and other deadly episodes in Ferguson, Charleston, Dallas, St. Paul, Baltimore, Baton Rouge, and Alexandria — is where the United States is headed.
“How fragile is the Union, our republic, and a country that has long been considered the world’s most stable democracy? The dangers are now bigger than the collective episodes of violence. ‘The radical right was more successful in entering the political mainstream last year than in half a century,’ the Southern Poverty Law Center reported in February. The organization documents more than nine hundred active (and growing) hate groups in the United States. America’s stability is increasingly an undercurrent in political discourse.”
These street battles between extremist political factions are disturbing. They could become a serious problem, if not stopped. But let’s not wet our pants yet.
Current events in America are trivial by comparison with those during Germany’s Weimar Republic, when Left and Right fought in the streets — with the police as neutrals. For more about this period see Martin van Creveld’s great new book Hitler in Hell, Here Hitler discusses the climax of the street warfare, with the Weimar political regime near collapse (the SA were the Nazi’s paramilitary thugs):
“The SA had 86 dead in 1931 alone, and wounded plenty more. …In the summer of 1932 461 street battles took place in Berlin alone, leaving 82 people dead.”
Our current events are also trivial compared to those of America’s past. Such as the political violence in America in the 1960s and the 1970s. Our cities burnt in race riots, and the National Guard in full military gear occupied America’s ghettos each summer. Massive anti-war riots (e.g., the shootings at Kent State). Militant leftist groups were setting bomb across the nation , so that NYT called 1969 a Year of Bombings (e.g., the Weather Underground). Other left terrorist groups were even more aggressive (e.g., the Symbionese Liberation Group).
Amazingly, all that has gone down the memory hole. Our amnesia makes us easy to manipulate by cutting us from our history.
- Only our amnesia makes reading the newspapers bearable.
- We have trouble coping with our present because we’ve lost our past.
- Amnesia and anger: one is the problem, the other the cure.
A warning from the past.
While the current levels of political violence are trivial, there are broader similarities to Weimar. See gender-bending now and then. More importantly, politically active paramilitary forces were a destabilizing force in Weimar, the Freikorps (“free corps”) composed of WWI vets. The largest were the right-wing Steel Helmets and the left-wing Red Front Fighters.
Today we have roughly 2.5 million men and women who served in Iraq and Afghanistan (as of the end of 2012). Some fraction of those have not integrated back into civilian life, and might be susceptible to appeals of right-wing militia (or perhaps left-wing militia) if we get an economic downturn. One of the alt-right’s leaders, Nathan Damigo, is a USMC vet — with two tours in Iraq.
Our real foe: hysteria
There is always good advice available, if we want it. As in this NYT op-ed by Samuel Moyn and David Priestland: “Trump Isn’t a Threat to Our Democracy. Hysteria Is.”
“Since Donald Trump’s election, the United States has been gripped by tyrannophobia. Conspiracies against democracy are everywhere; truth is under siege; totalitarianism is making a comeback; “resistance” is the last refuge of citizens.
“Tyrannophobia, the belief that the overwhelmingly important political issue is the threat to our liberal freedoms and institutions, has always been a powerful force in the United States. As history has shown, however, its tendency to redirect our attention from underlying social and economic problems has often been the real source of danger. It is easier to believe that democracy is under siege than to acknowledge that democracy put Mr. Trump in power – and only more economic fairness and solidarity can keep populists like him out. …
“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.”
Moyn is a professor of law and history at Yale. Priestland is a professor of history at Oxford.
Consequences of our hysterical fear.
This hysterical and fearful thinking greases the way to awful decisions, such as described in this: “Is Changing the Constitution the Only Way to Fix Washington?” by Sophie Quinton (staff writer) at the Pew Trust. It is the kind of terrible advice quite common these days, but alluring – offering an easy effortless solution to our problems.
A people too apathetic and passive to run the Republic’s political machinery is too weak for the greater challenge of revising the Constitution. The GOP is dominant at all levels of government; the 1% owns both parties. On advice of the great and wise, we’ll reform America into a hard plutocracy. For details see these posts.
- Is it time to take the drastic step of calling a Constitutional Convention?
- Could a new Constitutional Convention help reform America? Is it worth the risk?
- Can Constitutional amendments save the Republic?
A better path.
There are better ways to reform America. They require hard work over years, with people risking much — and no certainty of success. For some ideas see Reforming America: steps to new politics.
For More Information.
Another example of hysterical fear-mongering about American politics: “Surviving America’s Political Meltdown” by Jeffrey Sachs (prof of stuff at Columbia). His description of US politics is delusional. The elites of both parties agree on a wide range of key issues, both domestic and foreign — the WOT, neoliberalism, loose regulation of Wall Street and Silicon Valley, etc.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about politics in America, about fear, about the Trump years in America, and especially these about fear…
- Journalists suffer from the crisis crisis, warping America’s vision.
- Requiem for fear. Let’s learn from failed predictions to have confidence in ourselves & our future.
- Threats come & go, leaving us in perpetual fear & forgetful of the past.
- Dreams of apocalypses show the brotherhood of America’s Left & Right.
- Collapsitarians and their doomster porn.
- A new survey reveals American’s top fears, showing our true selves.
- Before we panic about Trump, see the Left’s past warnings.
- We love scary stories. The reason why reveals a secret about America.
A new book about us.
To help us understand how we fell into this hole. From the publisher…
“A novel focus on ‘personal responsibility’ has transformed political thought and public policy in America and Europe. Since the 1970s, responsibility ― which once meant the moral duty to help and support others―has come to suggest an obligation to be self-sufficient. This narrow conception of responsibility has guided recent reforms of the welfare state, making key entitlements conditional on good behavior.
“Drawing on intellectual history, political theory, and moral philosophy, Yascha Mounk shows why the The Age of Responsibility is pernicious ― and how it might be overcome.
“Personal responsibility began as a conservative catchphrase. But over time, leaders across the political spectrum came to subscribe to its underlying framework. Today, even egalitarian philosophers rarely question the normative importance of responsibility. Emphasizing the pervasive influence of luck over our lives, they cast the poor as victims who cannot be held responsible for their actions.
“Mounk shows that today’s focus on individual culpability is both wrong and counterproductive: it distracts us from the larger economic forces determining aggregate outcomes, ignores what we owe our fellow citizens regardless of their choices, and blinds us to other key values, such as the desire to live in a society of equals. Recognizing that even society’s neediest members seek to exercise genuine agency, Mounk builds a positive conception of responsibility. Instead of punishing individuals for their past choices, he argues, public policy should aim to empower them to take responsibility for themselves―and those around them.”
31 thoughts on “Civil war is coming to America – our latest doomster story!”
Americans need to stop watching the so-called evening news that’s cranked out by the MSM. I stopped that years ago. Guess what – the world is still here.
“Guess what – the world is still here.”
Yes, the world is still here if you close your eyes. What did you expect? If you close your eyes all that changes is that you no longer know what’s happening.
A more relevant question is how to find reliable news sources. I have never used TV news, and can’t imagine what value it has other than as info-tainment. But that’s just how I roll. Each to his own in these things.
Oh I’m not blind to what’s happening in the States or elsewhere. One news source I find better than anything state side is the BBC News. I get some news here and there in my travels around the web, my eyes aren’t totally closed.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you both about both TV News and the BBC.
I always wonder what people mean when they say they don’t use X or Y. Most often it is accompanied by claims that they don’t show the truth per the Right/Left, and only their preferred ideological blinders show the Truth.
Anyone seriously interested in the subject should watch last night’s Vice News segment covering the events in Charlottesville.
I am sure some will call this propaganda, but it provides a chilling picture of the motivations of some members of the Alt Right. For me as an Alum of Mr. Jefferson’s University it was personal. It was no accident that a group of self-proclaimed Nazis chose the Lawn at UVA as the site of their torchlit parades, ending on the steps of the Rotunda, Jefferson’s classical shrine to American Democracy. Their goal is to supplant the open society created by the Founding Fathers and the symbolism is clear.
I’m not going to panic about the potential for revolution. So far this pales in comparison to the 1960s when we witnessed civil insurrection on a large scale. But neither can these events be ignored. We are in the early innings of this and need to watch out not only for growth of intolerance on the right, but also for counter-repression from the left as actors there become empowered by these events.
“It was no accident that a group of self-proclaimed Nazis chose the Lawn at UVA as the site of their torchlit parades, ending on the steps of the Rotunda, Jefferson’s classical shrine to American Democracy. ”
What does this mean? How many political demonstrations are “accidents”? Are the mobs tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee “accidents”?
“For me as an Alum of Mr. Jefferson’s University it was personal.”
What does that mean?
“I am sure some will call this propaganda, but it provides a chilling picture of the motivations of some members of the Alt Right.”
It’s propaganda in the sense I used if it portrays one side as innocents and the others as aggressors. That is also called lying. In fact large elements of both sides went there prepared to fight, and did fight. People who do so are criminals, converting politics into a brawl. If not suppressed we get Latin America or Weimar.
The people who cheer either side in this fighting are foes of the Republic. While not illegal, we must call them out for what they are.
“What does this mean? How many political demonstrations are “accidents”? Are the mobs tearing down statues of Robert E. Lee “accidents”?”
My sense is that the torchlight march is of a character different from the protests on Saturday and clearly aimed to lever the backdrop of the Jefferson imagery counterposed with a shouts of anti-semitic chants to create a political narrative that only certain men are worthy of being treated as equals.
The Saturday protest was planned for violence and an armed terroristic show of force by the Alt Right groups and in a much less organized way for counter-violence by a smaller number of the Anti-fascists. While the death of Heather Heyer elevated Saturday to another level, the Saturday protest was essentially one of many such confrontations that have and will occur around the South as the statues continue to come down.
Friday night was far darker and more dangerous in its symbolism.
“For me as an Alum of Mr. Jefferson’s University it was personal.”
What does that mean?
“I’ve always revered Jefferson as the true father of our country. For me the Lawn is a national shrine every bit as sacred as St. Peters is to the Catholic faith or the Kaaba Stone is to Muslims. Our national shrine was violated in the name of hate and bigotry. For me that is very personal.”
“The Saturday protest was planned for violence and an armed terroristic show of force by the Alt Right groups”
What is the basis for that statement?
“by a smaller number of the Anti-fascists.”
What is the basis for that statement? Most accounts I have seen say that the counterprotesters greatly outnumbered the protesters. Logical, since the counterprotestors had the home court advantage (a university town).
“I’ve always revered Jefferson as the true father of our country. …Our national shrine was violated in the name of hate and bigotry.”
You must be kidding us. You do remember that Jefferson owned slaves, and wasn’t a gentle master. A white nationalist event on Jefferson’s home turf is very appros.
Moving on to the next stage of the CTRL-left’s historical erasure campaign , Stone Mountain (and then Mount Rushmore). The erasure teams can get some pointers from the demolition of the Buddha statues..
In Chicago, another demand.
Maybe this dude can check all the people in his community named “Washingtton” or “Jackson” and demand that they get their names changed.
OMG — that’s probably the next phase of our ride down the slippery slope: forced shaming of people with names of historically bad people!
Hi FM and all,
FM> Feel the clickbait excitement of the opening.
That sums up so much of what’s wrong with MSM today and reporting on controversial, clickbait-ready topics. It’s amplified by the need to be first or near the forefront of the baying pack in the 24-hour news cycle, and almost no accountability for getting things wrong. It’s tiring having to fact-check NYT, WaPo, BBC, and friends, but these days, it’s sadly necessary for anything in the purview of the PC Thought Police.
Strangely hard to find in the reporting is any sense of the true scale of the event. I’ve heard that the alt-right contingent was in the hundreds (maybe as much as 1000), but these were people drawn from all across the country for a gathering called “Unite the Right”. I haven’t seen numbers about the counter-protesters, but their numbers must surely be larger and much more organic, because I’m sure many if not most were not of the antifa-set looking for a dust up — just people whipped up by the prospect of KKK and alt-right types marching through the streets. From the reporting, you’d think that Voldemort Bannon created as super-serum that he cunningly lined the rims of MAGA hats with and turned all the Trump voters into an invincible army of Nazi super-soldiers. This wasn’t Watts or Detroit, but it’s the end of America! Putting things into context with well-researched dispassionate reporting is not the way to clicks and outrage and ad revenue.
While potentially hostile 4GW actors like the types of groups that show up at things like Unite the Right should rightly be tracked and documented, it’s unhelpful to give them free publicity and a platform for spontaneous recruiting videos that shows a place in the world for a disaffected white boy where he can go whip some hippie butt with 500 of his closest Aryan brothers. But here’s the paradox: if CNN doesn’t cover it, MSNBC will and have the scoop. If one does, they all do. I’m sure there is some fancy game theory term for this dynamic. Something akin to the tragedy of the commons and the prisoner’s dilemma.
Thanks for the post and the Sachs (and other) links.
There was a (very odd) discussion at Naked Capitalism which I unwisely started. I said that given the recent violent clashes — and the number of armed people in the crowd — many or most of the people there were there for action. Not for speeches and cheering.
Does that seem right to you? It’s just a guess, of course.
“Strangely hard to find in the reporting is any sense of the true scale of the event.”
I agree. Usually news stories give estimates of crowd size (they’re often grossly inaccurate). But I’ve not seen any about this event.
“but these were people drawn from all across the country for a gathering called “Unite the Right”.”
I see statements like that, too. I seldom see anyone give a basis for that. A small survey? Insight from The Force? Repeating gossip? Just making stuff up?
“I’ve heard that the alt-right contingent was in the hundreds (maybe as much as 1000) …I haven’t seen numbers about the counter-protesters, but their numbers must surely be larger and much more organic”
What does “organic” mean in this context? Given the nature of Charlottesville, I agree that the counter-protesters were the majority.
“because I’m sure many if not most were not of the antifa-set looking for a dust up”
More or less so than the alt-right? And why do you believe this?
“While potentially hostile 4GW actors like the types of groups that show up at things like Unite the Right ”
What “4GW groups”? This is domestic politics, not war.
I don’t see the widget to respond to your comment — just a like button — and google is not enlightening me.
FM> There was a (very odd) discussion at Naked Capitalism which I unwisely started.
I said that given the recent violent clashes — and the number of armed people in the crowd — many or most of the people there were there for action. Not for speeches and cheering.
Does that seem right to you? It’s just a guess, of course.
I wasn’t there and I’m more interested in 4GW theory than specific 4GW groups and actions (except the Taliban, I will confess, interest me disproportionately), but I think that almost all the alt-right and antifa folks came loaded for bear and had no use for speeches or cheering. That there apparently wasn’t more vandalism a la Berkeley suggests to me the “troop sizes” were sufficiently large to hold each other’s attention, or antifa was outnumbered. I wouldn’t expect there to be very many non-alt-right pro-statue folks at the rally — they have reputations and families to protect. I think there could have been a whole bunch of well-meaning “counter-protesters” who were not violent or interested in violence, like that poor woman who was murdered and the others mauled in that horrible terrorist attack. But these would on average have to be pretty far up the Social Justice Warrior spectrum, because the potential for violence is extreme, and you have to be pretty stout of heart to stand in or near a riot, especially if you’re not rioting.
Why do you say “wow”?
Also, what is the 4GW element to the Charlottesville riot? It is garden variety domestic politics. Samuel Adams would consider it familiar, if amateurish. He’d be running the group in a month. Which group? Whichever one he chose to join.
BO> “but these were people drawn from all across the country for a gathering called “Unite the Right”.”
FM> I see statements like that, too. I seldom see anyone give a basis for that. A small survey? Insight from The Force? Repeating gossip? Just making stuff up?
Two sources: something that I’ll classify as gossip (someone who follows these things) and extrapolation. There is a Unite the Right wikipedia page, which calls out a number of the “speakers” — names that have percolated up into the MSM and others and all the different groups who will attend, neither groups of which will I deign to list here. I am sure that folks from around the South, PA, WVA, etc., traveled — with so many groups it seems implausible that they wouldn’t and with so many “rock stars” it seems implausible that some folks wouldn’t travel from Idaho, Western Washington and Western Oregon, etc. Finally, having them primarily from VA and the immediate environs of Charlottesville just didn’t feel right if the numbers were in the 500-1000 range. I should have conditioned the statement and cited the UTR wikipedia page.
BO> “I’ve heard that the alt-right contingent was in the hundreds (maybe as much as 1000) …I haven’t seen numbers about the counter-protesters, but their numbers must surely be larger and much more organic”
FM> What does “organic” mean in this context? Given the nature of Charlottesville, I agree that the counter-protesters were the majority.
I figured that Charlottesville being a college town there would be a lot of SJWs who would very reasonably want to come out and denounce the alt-right. So by organic, I mean already there. Once the bats started swinging and the bricks flying, any sane person *not* looking to crack skulls would high-tail it out of there. Riots are terrifying things to be in.
BO> >“because I’m sure many if not most were not of the antifa-set looking for a dust up”
FM> More or less so than the alt-right? And why do you believe this?
From my understanding, antifa refers specifically to a subset of the radical left that embrace the use of violence as a tactic. I am not an expert in the antifa, but I’ve read some: Peter Beinhart’s Atlantic article seems typical. I use antifa to refer to those lefties that come looking spoiling for a fight or setting something on fire or throwing a brick, etc., as antifa. In this sense, the antifa are as a group are more spoiling for a fight than the generic alt-right, in my mind. Antifa is in my thinking (and it could well be wrong) something like a Brownshirt of the left. From what I can tell, the alt-right is much broader than the folks who showed up in Charlottesville — I *think* the latter represent the Brownshirts of the alt-right (which gives the alt-right too much cohesion and organizational credit).
Now, the irony is that intent does not always equal action. An antifa or alt-righter might have gone looking for blood, but it’s another thing to face blows to deal blows or watch a litany of cheap shots and kicks on the ground and keep your nerve.
FM> What “4GW groups”?
I don’t consider antifa a 4GW group or a potential one any time soon. I think it’s more like a club. What’s their agenda? I do think, however, that some of the alt-right groups are not overtly waging war, they may be preparing to, in their way. Again, preparedness for an event does not imply desiring the event. The reason I say this is that they have a specific agenda or at least stated objectives, that they see what they value and want to preserve — their “way of life” and “culture” and children and their future — under threat by specific groups. I’ll yield the point that if open warfare is not currently being waged, then there can’t be a 4GW group, but I think there are viable “proto-4GW” groups among some of the more radical alt-right organizations. This would make a *fantastic* discussion between you and some of folks you know!
Anyway, some of these groups probably merit keeping an eye on, even if they should be largely ignored in the public eye. What is the saying: you don’t have to be a trained physician to see someone is very ill.
FM> This is domestic politics, not war.
It’s a continuum, right? Might not seeing/perceiving/believing however mistakenly your “culture” literally being torn down, your jobs replaced by the other, your religion replaced, etc., be seen or interpreted as acts of war? Again, I’m trying to imagine what it might look like from a different perspective. If that’s how people see things, then those are likely preconditions to war, and if war is inevitable, you prep the battlespace — you don’t just rush right in, especially if you’re a 4GW type.
Also, I don’t don’t don’t mean that America is on the brink of civil war or anything like that. I just mean that there are what I believe to be very small elements on the right who might become sufficiently radicalized to take action. Not civil war, but a possible new golden age of terrorism. These guys aren’t and never be Maoists, but if they feel cut off from the larger society and that they have nothing left to lose, it seems at least plausible that they take to blowing stuff up and shooting people and trying to turn people upon one another. It’s happened before, but they didn’t have access to gear and technology like we have today.
Thanks for the cogent and well-supported explanations!
As for 4GW — while the spectrum between peace and war is a continuum, even civil violence is a long long way from war. And I don’t see any signs of 4GW in Charlottesville.
This goes to a different subject. 4GW was defined in “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation” by William S Lind et al., Marine Corps Gazette (Oct 1989). It discusses war. Since then concept has become expanded to the point of uselessness — which is why it is ignored by the military.
FM> Why do you say “wow”?
Simply an expression of surprise. The discussion was wide-ranging, detailed, and intense. It also showed the classic case of misdirection (at your expense, alas), where the discussion intentionally veered from being about the substance to arguing that the word lie is not the appropriate word for misleading prose that is not suffused with refutable fact.
FM> Also, what is the 4GW element to the Charlottesville riot?
I went on, rightly or wrongly, at length in another reply. The nut graf is that while there may not be an operational 4GW entity there today, some of the alt-right groups might have the social cohesion, shared vision, and discipline to become an operational terrorist/4GW organization a la Weather Underground.
“arguing that the word lie is not the appropriate word for misleading prose that is not suffused with refutable fact.”
I didn’t want to commit heresy against the Left Tribe, but I suspect the author of the article (Cory Long) was lying. He describes the counterprotesters as innocent victims. I don’t believe anyone there can honestly say that. The videos show a different reality. Even the article’s photo doesn’t clearly show what he says it does. This has gone viral on Left:
I see a short fat old guy waving a flag on a pole at a Black man both larger and in far better physical shape. The man is firing flame at him. The old guy on the right might be worried that the crazy guy’s flaming paint can will explode and injure him. The big on the far right looks quite relaxed. I see no “defending” visible in this photo.
How do you interpret this photo?
FM> How do you interpret this photo?
I don’t think that the guys on the stairs (largely) represent that Brownshirt wing of the alt-right — the guys looking to carry shields and crack skulls. The picture sure looks like the guy with the flag is reacting to having flames shot at him.
Also, that could easily be an organic or emergent scene, just local folks coming out for the show or to vent, which I will unconditionally say represents frustrated street politics and not an indication of emergent 4GW actors. You don’t go to a protest with a can of WD40 (or whatever) and a lighter unless you’re looking for trouble.
BTW, I hear you on the general dilution of what 4GW means. I am not a 4GW expert, but what I’ve learned comes from Lind, MvC, etc. I read Changing Face of War probably 10 years ago or more (when Lind was writing his On War articles), so my thinking may have become dispersed by current sloppy usage.
My willingness to think about some them in 4GW terms is the notion, however delusional, of setting up a separate Whitedudeistan, they attack the US Government’s culture of diversity, are distributed, are trying to use psyops, etc. I guess my dividing line is how far outside the line of mainstream politics (taking it to the streets and rioting are inside, or at least on, the line in this sense) you are willing to go to advance your cause and if that cause is something that is so radically different from the establishment it cannot be accomplished inside the system.
Thanks for the link to Changing Face of War. I’ll go back and update my understanding.
Still, I would love to read a dispassionate analysis of the spectrum of groups that make the up the so-called alt-right, their sizes, agenda, resources, and potential for threat. I’d be interested enough to buy the book, but not enough to write it myself, LOL! Too many other things to hold that kind of interest!
You will find little in van Creveld’s work for the broad non-military use of 4GW (aka non-trinitarian warfare), as in domestic political violence.
As for reviews of the alt-right, it is too new to have been studied much. Groups like the Proud Boys are big and growing, but just recently on institution’s “radar” screens. The SPLC has done good work cataloguing them, although they do so with an often far-left tilt.
Honestly, I think the best way to handle the alt-right protesting would be for nobody at all to show up. Let them march. With no one there to see them, it seems to me, that would be highly effective.
I agree. But streetfighters want to fight. to see how this works I recommend reading Martin van Creveld’s Hitler in Hell.
Whats missing in all the analysis of the torches and spectacle is the idea for the torches comes directly from the US backed Ukranian separatists. They had identical (but much larger up to 15,000) marches. Supporting white nationalism extremism against Russia is fine but it’s super evil when it happens here???
If I was quick to jump to conspiracy theory I would say since the CIA helped the torch bearers in the Ukraine perhaps they are also helping them here.
We know why the CIA aided the Ukraine. Why would they care what happens in Charlottesville?
“is the idea for the torches comes directly from the US backed Ukranian separatists.”
That is not even remotely true. In living memory there is a group far more famous for its use of torchlight parades. The Nazi party.
The Civil War never even ended! According to the United States Constitution, in order for a wart to be officially ended a Treaty must be signed. There is no such document in existence. The only document ever signed was a proclamation. A proclamation and a treaty are completely different documents and have completely different meanings.
“The Civil War never even ended! According to the United States Constitution, in order for a wart to be officially ended a Treaty must be signed. ”
The Confederacy was an illegitimate entity, so there was no Treaty with it at any time. Not by the US, or by any other nation.
The rebellion was crushed, and that’s it. No other action was needed.
Civil war is coming in a hot way of death, its been coming for 50 years in todays American we see insane government of the democrats openly calling for total open borders attack a good president and attack white Americans soon the dam will coming down and the waters of mass death will rust in and death and blood will become normal.
Such things are guesses about the future, but that guess seems unlikely to me. We have these troubles because we have become apathetic and passive. Coach potatoes aren’t the people to risk everything in a civil war.
The easy historical analogy is, as I’ve said before, late Republican Rome. The Roman people, like us, found the burdens of self-government too heavy to bear. Now our elites are jockeying among themselves to see who will rule us. Should we object, elections are held every two years.