This is why I caution what people should expect when imagining a second civil war.
It’s not going to be formed lines of men in pitched battles.
It’s going to be warlords engaging in terror tactics with the fronts emerging along urban rural divides as opposed to state lines.
This won’t be the battle of Gettysburg, it’ll be the Troubles with rigged quad copter drones instead of car bombs.
Depending on who wins this election the US military isn’t going to be either “side”‘s ally, in fact they’ll probably be the fighting parties’ worst enemy since their goal is basically just going to be to kill all the people taking up arms until the terrorists and counter-terrorist terrorists knock it all off.
It’ll probably lead to a purge of the most extreme folks in politics, as they’ll either be found in cahoots with the terror cells covertly, or actively be leading one or more of them out of a misplaced sense that they’ll be able to parry it into running the country.
It won’t be glorious, it won’t be honorable, it won’t be anything for people to be proud of. It will just be bloody and then deeply regretted by all but the most unrepentant cretins, who still won’t be able to publicly express that sentiment or risk ostracism at best, and lynching if they are discovered to have had a hand in ruining everyone’s lives for however long it goes on for.
Nailed it! A modern civil war would almost certainly take the form of the Troubles, unless there’s a state secession, which I find highly unlikely.
I think Texas would make a move towards it, and then Austin would catch on fire as the very liberal city population mutinees against the republican leaders trying the stunt.
My guess is that it will be more like Syria
We had that in the first one…
Kentucky fought for both sides. A family could even split with brothers going to each side, and possibly both making it back.
That’s what the whole Hatfield’s and Mcoys shit was. Was side was union, one confederate. One side was made about a member that died in war, and killed a member of the other.
They were the most famous feud, but all over Kentucky the civil war kept playing out for years after it ended.
The resulting exodus to escape the violence is why you see rebel flags still in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and other northern states.
Sounds exactly what I would expect.
And it’s already happening. Local government buildings getting bomb threats and packages with apparent explosives. Mass shootings. It’s just gonna get worse, and more painful to observe and experience.
I’m starting to think we need more wartime generals and less businesspeople in politics.
Unfortunately, you get Pattons from the military just like you get Grants.
we’d also get shermans though.
Pretty sure Grant is widely considered to have been a lousy president.
He’s easily my favorite president, but he chose hands down the worst and most corrupt cabinet members of all time.
What makes him your favorite then?
He was better for emancipation and reparations of freed slaves than Lincoln, he even had a history of employing them and treating them well during the war and before the great emancipation. His inaugural address alone was enough to earn points with me, but he was also responsible for changes of the Tenure of Office Act which allowed him to remove presidential cabinet members without the senate needing to vote on it, gave suffrage to people of all color via the 15th Ammendment (which almost certainly would have been vetoed by the previous Johnson who took the reigns after Lincoln was assassinated and before Grant was elected), and his administration defeated the KKK via state marshals and federal troops over his 2 terms as president.
To be clear, Grant was a radical of his time. He was fringe and far left from the norm of the time. He treated blacks as equals and as citizens when under the previous president Johnson there were massacres and riots against African American communities. To Grant, they were worth defending with the lives of servicemen like himself.
By comparison Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict. It took two years after secession and war for Lincoln to emancipate slaves. I’m not saying Grant was perfect in every way, mind you, but if I had to pick a president whom I liked the most it would easily be Grant. (It’s not a high bar).
And that’s all you’ll get out of me, go read a book you lazy fuck.
Lincoln was a moderate too afraid to give any promise of rights or eventual freedom to slaves because he wanted to avoid any and all conflict
To be fair in the context of the era, he had his fill of catastrophic conflict during his tenure, and the Thirteen Amendment was passed by the skin of Congress’s teeth. The huge leap was his, the following strides were for somebody else to take.
Lincoln was also at one point on board with a plan to send them all back to Africa. I’m sticking to the “he was a moderate” take I had before.
fun fact, Liberia was actually an experiment at sending freed African American slaves back to Africa because people thought that freed slaved would have better prospects of liberty and prosperity in Africa than they did in the States.
Feels like I just read one!
You’re quite correct on all points in my opinion, for what it’s worth.
Edit: although to be fair, Lincoln had to navigate an extremely complex political situation. He could’ve done a lot worse than how it ended up.
He was better for emancipation and reparations of freed slaves than Lincoln
In fairness to Lincoln, he wasn’t given much of an opportunity to govern post-war.
Hi. I just asked a question. You invited a question with an open ended statement that he was “your favorite”. You have no way of knowing what I know or what I have read. You have no idea of my name, my education, what car I drive, or what I like for breakfast.
I don’t have the same knowledge about you.
So instead of making things personal when someone asks a perfectly normal question in a conversation maybe you should ask yourself “Am I the problem?”.
I don’t think he meant anything by it. Just a way of saying “I’m done writing on the internet” with a certain style
It’s a crazy style. He also responded and doubled downed.
You could have searched for the readily available information. I’ve demonstrated far more effort in this one sided convo, despite us living in a world filled with insincere contrarian badgers. Be happy and fuck off.
Go screw yourself in your giant Grant cuddle blanket. Since with your attitude you will be lucky if someone pisses on you if you catch on fire. Miserable asshole.
He’s received a much more positive re-evaluation from historians in recent years.
I mean not saying he’s the worst, but wasn’t he famously corrupt? I have a hard time getting past that one.
His administration was very corrupt, which is a black mark that can’t really be re-evaluated away. Grant himself is widely accepted to have been innocent - the man died nearly penniless, and was never a prodigious spender - but he was trusting and loyal to his friends. These are actually really BAD traits for a politician, in which trust and loyalty are a big “USE ME” sign painted on your back.
However, Grant’s overwhelmingly negative reputation has a lot to do with the domination of Lost Causers in historical academia up until the 70s. He was positively radical on civil rights, crushed the First KKK, pursued a policy of negotiation and attempted coexistence rather than war with Native American tribes, set up reform within the civil service, was positively inclined towards women’s suffrage, created the country’s first national parks, supported public schooling, and elevated African-Americans and Jewish-Americans to high posts within the government despite the racism and religious prejudice rampant in the period.
Very very unfortunately, trust and loyalty are a “USE ME” sign painted on one’s back in many parts of the modern world .
He committed the unforgivable sin of actually trying to do Reconstruction, and no modern American historical revisionist can tolerate that shit.
Except that both sides will call themselves patriotic and intelligent.
So anyone just looking at the situation with their peripheral vision, will not know which one they are looking at.the thing is, only one of those sides is deluded into thinking they’re actually patriots.
And the problem being that, that side is easier to propagate than the one which tells you to observe properly and use more of your brain.
This is a fundamental problem with any kind of civil conflict. You’re inevitably going to have inteliigensia at the highest levels of each side of the dispute. You’re going to have mountains of propaganda to justify the need for the conflict and the existential nature of the threat of the opposition. You’re going to dehumanize your opposition in order to de-legitimize any kind of dispute. And you’re going to tap a rich vein of low-income, low-education civilians to fill out the rank and file of your military.
Plenty of liberals lined up to march into the deserts of Iraq and mountains of Afghanistan and jungles of Vietnam. Plenty of conservatives are still part of the Soy, Woke, and Gay modern military, NSA, FBI, and CIA. Even if you’re looking dead center, you’re only going to see the view that your lens of observation affords. Its not like Bezos owned WaPo or Bill Gates’s MSNBC is above filling your eyes with Murdoch-tier bullshit. Just look at how the clusterfuck in Gaza has been covered.
What we have, at the end of the day, are all the same tools of dividing and conquering our own nation that we have historically inflicted on our colonial territories. Fascism is just imperialism returning to the core. And when your wild-eyed gun totting next-door neighbor breaks in to your house, convinced that you’ve got an adrenachrome factory in a non-existent basement, it’ll be under the same conditions that turned Rwandan Hutus and Tutsis against one another or Serbs and Bosnians or Koreans and other Koreans or Texans and Mexicans time and time again before.
Very well said
I agree. Classic UnderpantsWeevil.
Sure, they’ll say they are, but their actions will make it obvious which one it is in actuality. Did you attempt to violently disrupt the peaceful transfer of power? Do you ban books? You’re not on the “intelligent and patriotic” side.
Since that quote in 1875, “patriotism” has wandered over to the other side of the line, inbred with superstition, ambition, and ignorance, and turned into nationalism.
That just leaves intelligence, by its lonesome, on the other side.
That’s not patriotism. Being patriotic is like being honest; if someone has to stress how honest they are, they’re not.
Put another way: patriotism is shown through actions, not through words.
I show my patriotism by voting and ensuring the rights and autonomy of others is protected. That’s theoretically why nations exist. I can be proud of mine when it fulfills that promise.
Patriotism is loving your country by loving its foundation. It’s people. Loving your neighbor. Loving your brothers and sisters. I feel no love from the GOP.
Or flags. Especially with blue lines.
The most patriotic thing an American can do is criticize politicians and hold the ones they vote for accountable.
Blindly insisting your country/party is perfect and excusing every fault is nationalism.
That’s what the nazis had, the Republicans have, and I swear moderates want Dems to adopt.
Grant isn’t referring to “ruh ruh 'Murica” as patriotism, he’s talking about appreciation of what we have. Different political alignments just appreciate different things; the left, liberty, and the right, supremacy of rich, white males.
Yeah, I get that. But in 2024, when you hear the word “patriot” who do you think of?
We should not allow terms like this to be coopted. It’s a pretty standard tactic: dilute the language of your opposition so it becomes harder for them to communicate effectively with an audience. Trying to constantly change your position’s vocabulary is a losing strategy as the intended audience can’t keep up. Instead, we must take back the words that are important and, for example, clearly state that it is the oppressor who is unpatriotic.
A flag doesn’t make you a patriot. Loving guns and blind faith to Constitution doesn’t make you a patriot. It is care for your fellow American, defending the weak and disenfranchised, and protecting the ideals of self-determination and opportunity that make someone a true patriot
I really appreciate this take. In the pursuit of better language, some groups also hamper their own ability to communicate - not a slam against the attempt, but between that and the other side diluting the group’s words, it’s an uphill fight
not a slam against the attempt, but between that and the other side diluting the group’s words, it’s an uphill fight
And they are absolutely doing it on purpose. Stripping meaning from words benefits them, because their side doesn’t care about truth, or facts, or policies. As long as they can make the Other suffer, their base will scream whatever the word of the day is, and every time they steal a word, it makes matching their organization a little bit harder
Stripping meaning from words benefits them, because their side doesn’t care about truth, or facts, or policies.
“Insurrection” and “impeachment” have both been getting this treatment lately.
Just like National Socialist party wasn’t socialist, or the Democratic People’s Replubic of Korea isn’ta democracy, the patriotic republicans aren’t patriotic
So, the ignorant people don’t understand what patriotism is. It supports Grant’s thesis.
Definitely not the Russian shills that are going at our democracy with a weed whacker
Benjamin Martin, but not the actor that portrayed him
… Grant wasn’t writing in 2024.
Did he really fucking say that?!?!?! Goddamn prophetical
Someone on Shermanposting posted more of the speech. It’s even more prophetic than it seems - Grant speaks on the dangers of religious instruction in schools and the need for separation of Church and State.
I do not bring into this assemblage politics, certainly not partisan politics, but it is a fair subject for soldiers in their deliberations to consider what may be necessary to secure the prize for which they battled in a republic like ours. Where the citizen is sovereign and the official the servant, where no power is exercised except by the will of the people, it is important that the sovereign — the people — should possess intelligence.
The free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a free nation. If we are to have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Mason and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side, and superstition, ambition, and ignorance on the other.
Now in this centennial year of our national existence, I believe it a good time to begin the work of strengthening the foundation of the house commenced by our patriotic forefathers one hundred years ago, at Concord and Lexington. Let us all labor to add all needful guarantees for the more perfect security of free thought, free speech, and free press, pure morals, unfettered religious sentiments, and of equal rights and privileges to all men, irrespective of nationality, color, or religion.
Encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support, no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian school. Resolve that the State or Nation, or both combined, shall furnish to every child growing up in the land, the means of acquiring a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistic tenets. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of the Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.
Wow. That last part is… Rough. With these safeguards, I believe the battles which created the Army of Tennessee will not have been fought in vain.
Well we didn’t keep them separate.
a good common-school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistic tenets
Wonder what he meant by atheistic tenets.
holy shit, he fuckin nailed it
Ain’t it the truth
Too bad for him. Nowdays americans only understand things in terms of Harry Potter and comic books. The usamerican brain has turned into hamburguer long ago
Which ones you taking about? Because this is a pretty ignorant take, painting with a very wide brush.
An odd way to word that, but they’re not necessarily wrong. The way all forms of media have become long running franchises and contained boxes has worked as a constant distraction to the majority, and allowed for very easy information control. Movies, TV, news sources and radio stations are all owned by a few big companies, and the internet is really just meta, Google, and Microsoft. If every other website disappeared right now, the majority of Americans wouldn’t even notice. It’s not their fault, it’s just a captive industry designed to appeal to as many people as possible.
It seems like the Roman empire is too busy with their carnivals to see it crumbling around them.
You’re telling on yourself.
Fuck off. We are the country operating a drone on Mars while you’re drooling on your keyboard.
Youre operating drones in diabetesland, chill
Not even in the top 15%
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/diabetes-rates-by-country
Holy Cow China
If traditional Chinese food is at all the same as Americanized Chinese food, it isn’t much of a surprise. You honestly wouldn’t believe how much sugar goes into those sauces.
