Drake_Roberts
Rookie
- Oct 20, 2013
- 926
- 51
- Thread starter
- #321
A civil war implies a struggle over territory over which two opposing sides are dominant. IMO that doesn't exist. You may be thinking of a revolution against an established order. The people of America have been shown to be very compliant apathetic and indifferent except for isolated pockets of rebellion.
Look at how easily the Tea Party Movement has been subdued and it is only a popular grassroots political reform movement. The political power structure has, through propoganda, been able to break it up and disembowel it financially with a government agency, the IRS. It was not tolerated by either of the established power structures in Washington because its purpose is to change the accepted way of deal making to the detriment of the governed buy the power elite.
Any revolution will be in the form of a waxing political movement taking over the power structure of a state, and that would result in an even greater condemnation by anti-states rights opponents. That would lead to the undoing of the federal system as it now exists with a further concentration of politicsl power in Washington.
With that you would have your setting for a civil war with territory to fight over, but an extreme disparity between the two warring exponents. But there is no real chance of that scenario taking place unless there were a natural catastrophe - an EMP attack an exception - that would shake the foundations of the existing power structure leaving a power vacuum.
You mention isolated pockets of rebellion. What if one were to unite those groups with a common goal?