Civil War 2... Town Vs. Country?

[JimmyDimples]

I was wondering... after seeing the big split of the Democratic blue (mostly around the megalopolii) and the Republican red states (mainly the South, Midwest, and Rockies) in the previous prez election (and seeing the demographics of the one with the big Florida brew-haha back in 2000), do you guys think that the next American Civil War (if there is one) will be between the city dwellers and the folks in the suburbs and rural areas?

LA and NY vs. Flyover Country?
Slickers vs. Bumpkins?
SUVs vs. Monster Trucks?

Whatchoo think?

[Draconias]

What do you think the last one was about? It was the urbanized North against the rural South.

But no, there isn't going to be another civil war.

[Svoboda]

I think the next american civil war will be between non-white people and white people, even if some white guys will be on the non-white side and the inverse.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/7/06 04:46 PM, Svoboda wrote: I think the next american civil war will be between non-white people and white people, even if some white guys will be on the non-white side and the inverse.

You continue with your racist thoughts, I see.

[MortifiedPenguins]

See, it's already happened.

Twice.

You know, Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Guess what happened.

[Dash-Underscore-Dash]

At 12/7/06 06:20 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 12/7/06 04:46 PM, Svoboda wrote: I think the next american civil war will be between non-white people and white people, even if some white guys will be on the non-white side and the inverse.

You continue with your racist thoughts, I see.

Not racist, pollitically precarious.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/7/06 04:44 PM, Draconias wrote: What do you think the last one was about? It was the urbanized North against the rural South.

Except back then, the Republicans were in the north and wanted to prevent the south from keeping slavery and breaking off from the US. The Democrats were against the war that would be forcing the south to abolish slavery.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/7/06 08:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/7/06 04:44 PM, Draconias wrote:

Except back then, the Republicans were in the north and wanted to prevent the south from keeping slavery and breaking off from the US. The Democrats were against the war that would be forcing the south to abolish slavery.

Your not seriously comparing political partiest 140 years ago to today.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/7/06 08:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/7/06 08:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/7/06 04:44 PM, Draconias wrote:

Except back then, the Republicans were in the north and wanted to prevent the south from keeping slavery and breaking off from the US. The Democrats were against the war that would be forcing the south to abolish slavery.

Your not seriously comparing political partiest 140 years ago to today.

Why don't you read what Draconias said, THEN read what I said so you can understand the context in which I said what I did.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 12/7/06 06:20 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 12/7/06 04:46 PM, Svoboda wrote: I think the next american civil war will be between non-white people and white people, even if some white guys will be on the non-white side and the inverse.

You continue with your racist thoughts, I see.

I dont think an all out civil war could ever occur between whites and non whites, but look at what happened in france. It's not as dumb as you think, it happens all the time in other countries, the only thing is most americans dont own weapons, and the american army far more organized then it was in the 1860's and is controled by the federal government, if the south actually wanted to go to war with the north, they'd have to develope billons of dollars worth of military funding under the nose of uncle sam, which is nearly impossible in the world of today, especially if your right inside their country.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/7/06 08:36 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/7/06 08:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/7/06 08:29 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/7/06 04:44 PM, Draconias wrote:

Why don't you read what Draconias said, THEN read what I said so you can understand the context in which I said what I did.

I'm still seeing comparisons and an attepmt to try to discredit the Democratic party with what they did back then.

[JimmyDimples]

At 12/7/06 08:39 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

I dont think an all out civil war could ever occur between whites and non whites, but look at what happened in france. It's not as dumb as you think, it happens all the time in other countries, the only thing is most americans dont own weapons, and the american army far more organized then it was in the 1860's and is controled by the federal government, if the south actually wanted to go to war with the north, they'd have to develope billons of dollars worth of military funding under the nose of uncle sam, which is nearly impossible in the world of today, especially if your right inside their country.

Well, here's the thing: the American military is more dependent on power sources, food processing, and a lot of infrastructure and networked procedures that require supplies. A group that's able to live off the land without creature comforts or improvise (COUGH cough koffIraqiinsurgentskoff) could give the soldiers with their big fancy toys a run for their money.

In other words, all the bumpkins have to do to get a big edge would be to shut off the water, or snip the electric cables in the right place. Remember the big Northeast Blackout a few years ago?

Admittedly, the bumpkins would have to get their own organized group, and that'd be tough doing under the current Post 9/11 situation, but still.

That's assuming the Army stays with one side or the other and doesn't split off into different camps.

What y'allz think on that?

[AdamRice]

Please remember that the civil war was started over the right to own slaves.

[Camarohusky]

At 12/9/06 12:32 AM, fasdit wrote: Please remember that the civil war was started over the right to own slaves.

The real issue was states' rights. Slavery fit into this, but the split was not because of slavery. Slavery only added extreme emotion and righteousness to the issue.