No. A Civil War Would be Foolish

The Brewing Storm: A Nation on the Edge

There’s been an unsettling buzz since the 2020 elections about the looming threat of a civil war. 

Image Audio Player
AI Jane
Let AI Jane narrate.

Last year, a report from Science Magazine echoed this sentiment, stating that nearly half of Americans anticipate a civil war, with many even willing to forsake democracy for a strong, authoritarian leader. 

This notion is nothing short of astounding, suggesting a willingness to trade the principles of democracy for the rule of a dictator. 

Rachel Kleinfeld, a renowned expert on political violence at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, remarked that such a claim “should be shocking.” 

Indeed. It is.

Voices of Concern: Warnings from Prominent Figures

Shortly after releasing this alarming survey, the political sphere buzzed with heightened rhetoric, hinting at the brewing storm. 

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) didn’t mince words, warning, “And I’ll say this: If there is a prosecution of Donald Trump for mishandling classified information after the Clinton debacle…there will be riots in the street.”

The speculation of a second American Civil War intensified further with the August indictments against former President Donald Trump and 18 others in Fulton County, Georgia.

In a conversation with host Eric Bolling on NewsMax, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin forcefully expressed her frustration, “I want to ask them: What the heck? Do you want us to be in civil war? Because that’s what’s going to happen…We do need to rise up and take our country back.” 

That sentiment was echoed by legendary Hollywood actor Jon Voigt, who urged, “My fellow Americans, this is a civil war, and this is the time we must stand for truths.”

A couple of weeks later, the grim pronouncements continued to escalate. 

Former Governor Mike Huckabee voiced his fears on his TBN show, stating, “If these tactics end up working to keep Trump from winning or even running in 2024, it is going to be the last American election that will be decided by ballots rather than bullets.”

Bullets? Civil War? Rioting in the streets? 

The Grim Reality: Potential Consequences of a Civil War

The mere mention of these words should send shivers down one’s spine. It’s worth considering the grim reality of such a scenario. 

A patriot uprising without the backing of state governments would likely result in nothing less than horrific bloodshed. This tragedy would bury many Americans who cherish the nation’s founding principles and former glory. 

There are numerous reasons why an armed revolt would spiral into an unmitigated disaster.

First and foremost, a civil war in contemporary times would need a clear and unifying objective that everyone could readily understand and rally behind.

In contrast, the War Between the States had a distinct goal: Secession. 

Although the underlying motivations were complex, encompassing the protection of slavery, state rights, and preserving the Southern way of life, the objective was succinctly encapsulated in a single word.

Fast forward to today, any semblance of a repeat of that Civil War would require an objective far more specific than merely rallying behind a banner phrase such as “Make America Great Again.” 

Historical Echoes: Comparisons with the Civil War of 1861

While the South in the 1860s had rallying cries like “Dixie!” and “The South Will Rise Again!” which galvanized troops before battle, the modern equivalent lacks depth and specificity. “Make America Great Again,” although potent as a battle cry, fails to state any tangible goals to be achieved once the conflict subsides.

Another problem looming in this complex landscape is identifying a figure with the national presence and courage to articulate the objectives of a renewed civil war. That juggernaut seems almost impossible, especially when federal and state prosecutors are poised to jail individuals for offenses such as “Defrauding the United States” and “Making False Statements” regarding election outcomes. 

This raises the pressing question: who would dare to lead, and at what cost?

But let’s delve deeper into this hypothetical scenario. 

Suppose a courageous leader emerges, one who can articulate a clear objective and evade the scrutiny of law enforcement officials. What would be the next steps? 

Before any conflict could genuinely begin, a comprehensive military strategy would need to be devised. Critical decisions regarding the targets of potential attacks and the locations of these confrontations would be paramount.

In this context, some might argue that the unrest of 2020 had neither a defined leader nor goal.

During those tumultuous months, the nation witnessed significant chaos and destruction, led by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa movements, which seemed to achieve success despite lacking a clear end-game objective or a military strategy. 

In addition, it would be challenging to pinpoint a single figure who orchestrated this wave of violence.

However, drawing parallels between this period of unrest and a potential patriot uprising would be a severe error. 

Modern Challenges: The Search for a Unifying Objective

While BLM and Antifa may not have had a detailed plan of attack or a messianic leader, their objective (like the Civil War of 1861) was wrapped tightly around a single word: Destruction. 

The rebellious movement targeted symbols that represented white privilege, including buildings, businesses, vehicles, police, and historic landmarks. 

Their battle cries, such as “Black Lives Matter,” “No Justice, No Peace,” and “Hands Up,” resonated through the streets, serving both as a rallying call and a way to rouse the troops. Yet, these slogans often left authorities grappling to pinpoint their exact demands, though “Defund the Police” was a notable exception. 

It is crucial to note that the BLM and Antifa movements were not perceived as initiating a Civil War against the United States or any governmental entity. 

Instead, it revolted against entrenched traditional American values, including perceived inequalities and historical injustices. Their approach focused on challenging the prevailing American mindset, capitalist ideology, and distinctive heritage rather than overthrowing governmental powers.

To achieve these blurry goals, they were willing to set structures ablaze. 

In response, authorities seemed to tread a path of appeasement out of fear of escalation. 

This approach starkly contrasted with the decisive actions taken against individuals involved in the events of January 6th who were thrown into jail.

Policy Changes to Appease BLM and Antifa

Governments acted swiftly to institute policy changes: bail reforms, decreased sentencing durations, renaming of buildings, and removal of statues. Additionally, there were cuts to police budgets and mandatory diversity, equity, and inclusion training for government employees.

Governmental powers, unclear about how to please the BLM/Antifa rioters, resorted to hallucinating around their perceived injustices, even to the point of renaming insects and birds, commissioning BLM street murals, and proposing millions of dollars in reparations for Black communities.

Though the actions of the BLM and Antifa movements may have achieved particular objectives, adopting a similar approach would be seen as a betrayal of the principles held by many patriots. 

True patriots would never destroy their neighborhoods or harm innocent citizens to effect change. 

This raises a pressing question: what would be the target of a patriot-led movement?

Identifying Targets and Locations

In the grim event of a civil conflict erupting, with riots breaking out and bullets flying, one can’t help but wonder about the potential epicenters of such violence. 

Washington D.C., the nation’s capital, emerges as a likely target, given its symbolic representation of government overreach, election interference, and two-tier justice system. 

Pennsylvania Avenue, in particular, encapsulates a cocktail of grievances held by many patriots.

But consider this nuanced aspect.

The perceived “success” of the BLM/Antifa movements can be attributed to the fact that much of the chaos was localized, involving individuals who were part of or closely connected to their communities. 

This meant that participants didn’t have to travel long distances; many walked a few blocks to join the upheaval. 

And since “destruction” was their banner, with the hope governments would scramble to find ways to placate them, the strategy worked.

The Reality of Organizing a Uprising

Contrastingly, a patriot-led movement would face a host of logistical challenges that seem nearly insurmountable.

Participants would have to travel great distances, leaving behind their homes, families, and jobs for an extended period. They would have to resolve nearly insurmountable logistical obstacles, such as maintaining shelter, munition supplies, emergency medical aid, food, water, and an assortment of everyday gear, from garments to toiletries.

Would a Civil War combatant really think McDonald’s would open their bathroom doors to a heavily armed rebel?

Thus, the notion of a citizen uprising escalating to a full-blown civil war seems not only far removed from reality but also somewhat naive. It suggests a lack of understanding of the complexities and repercussions of such a conflict, bordering on infantile thinking.

Even assuming that the logistical hurdles could be overcome, the sheer might of the U.S. Government’s arsenal presents an insurmountable obstacle for private citizens, even those armed with sophisticated weaponry available to the public. 

To those contemplating participation in such a revolt, facing the formidable firepower of military assets like the AH-64 Apache seems almost ludicrous. 

State Actors: A Potential Game-Changer

A patriot-led civil war? It is a far-fetched notion.

For such a revolt to stand a chance, it would necessitate the involvement of state actors equipped with substantial resources, military expertise, and logistical capabilities. Yet, even with these assets, they would likely possess only a fraction of the firepower compared to the federal forces.

Intriguingly, there are hints that state actors might indeed consider getting involved. 

Take, for instance, the defiant statement from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton following his acquittal on sixteen articles of impeachment: 

“Finally, I can promise the Biden Administration the following: buckle up because your lawless policies will not go unchallenged. We will not allow you to shred the constitution and infringe on the rights of Texans. You will be held accountable.”

His stern warning to the Biden Administration, urging them to “buckle up” and vowing not to let lawless policies go unchallenged, hints at a simmering tension and a readiness to hold the federal government accountable. 

With their resources and organizational structures, state actors might stand a fighting chance in such a conflict. On the other hand, an unorganized, impulsive, and ill-equipped patriot civil war seems more fitting of what Joe Biden and his cartel of insipid agitators prefer.

The Biden Administration Provocations and Preparations

Since assuming office, the Biden administration has been bracing for potential civil conflict. 

In June 2021, the National Security Council, chaired by President Biden himself, issued a report warning of an elevated threat from Domestic Violent Extremists (DVEs) throughout the year, attributing this to growing perceptions of “government overreach.”

The report was wrong. That 2021 war never came.

But critics argue that if Biden has his way, he might ignite the conflict his administration has repeatedly hinted at. 

They view actions such as forming a “Disinformation Governance Board,” perceived as unconstitutional, and the alleged infringement on parental rights as provocations urging patriots to take up arms. 

The administration’s aggressive stance against individuals and groups they consider threats, including multiple criminal charges against Donald Trump and his associates, further fuels this narrative.

A Reckless Endeavor

Many believe that a civil war is exactly what Biden and his “Freedom Suppressing Fan Club” aim for. 

This sentiment echoes Trump’s statement from 2017, where he told supporters in Melbourne, Florida, “I am not the target. I am just the person in the way. They’re trying to get to you, the people.”

In this charged atmosphere, one might imagine the Biden administration purposely seeking a violent confrontation as a solution. Why lock them up in overcrowded prisons, the thinking would go, if we can get them to take up arms against the United States and shoot them dead? 

The unprecedented security measures observed during Biden’s 2021 inauguration, including the stationing of machine guns at the U.S. Capitol, are seen by some as an indication that Washington is prepared for a potential civil conflict that would target freedom-loving patriots.

However, a civil war would be a reckless and foolish endeavor with catastrophic consequences for those taking up arms.

But a Revolutionary War? That might be an entirely different story.

I wish to explain this thinking, but writing even an intellectual piece on the subject during this sad moment in U.S. history could invite some unwelcome visitors.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here