What Would a Second US Civil War Really Look Like? | Warographics | History Teacher Reacts
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 кві 2024
- Simon Whistler breaks down the scenario of a 2nd Civil War in the United States. What would be the cause? What would it look like? Is it even possible? How close are we. Mr. Terry adds a TON of commentary with historical context to analyze the possibility.
Original Video: What Would a Second US Civil War Really Look Like?
Join my channel to get early-access to new videos!
/ @mrterry
Links:
Gaming channel: / mrterrygaming
Discord - / discord
Twitter: / mrterryhistory
Merch - mrterry-shop.fourthwall.com/
Twitch: / mrterryhistory
Patreon - / mrterry
Tik Tok: / mrterryhistory
Instagram: / mrterryhistory
Facebook - / mr-terry-history-10913...
Streamlabs - streamlabs.com/mrterry2
PayPal - paypal.me/mrterryhistory
For all business inquiries: contact@tablerockmanagement.com
![ПОЛНАЯ ИСТОРИЯ ЭКЗОРЦИЗМА [Топ Сикрет]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qBySr6Bt0B8/mqdefault.jpg)
How close is the Untied States to a civil war REALLY?
You really want to find out? We can keep letting these politicians push us closer to warm but I don't want to hear nobody call anyone a traitor when it happens. I know I'm fighting on the side of the states fuck the federal government
we aren't
I would say we are primed for a civil war but we don't have the ignition point available. We are in a period of political instabiltiy, and there is a lot of unrest, but the unrest is localized to in kind territory. Perfect example: The left is happy to burn down cities, but the cities are controlled by the left and the right is happy to not interfere. Now if the left went into the right's territory, say a small town., and try to burn it down, that would be a potential ignition point. If the right had the motivation to go and try and do something about the left burning down cities that would also be a possible ignition point. But the left and right are just kind of... annoying each other. The political instability is there but none of the various sides actually have the will to push the issue and political coalitions are still being formed as political will moves. It's really bizzare if you think about it. We are so close to a civil war and yet the political will to actually have one is basically zero. It's the two dogs barking at each other across a fence but the second you open the gate the dogs back off until you put the gate back up and they go back to barking.
@@scottbivins4758 States rights to what, man?
Not as close as we were in the 1960s by a long shot. We're in a period of political instability since the parties are currently trying to reinvent themselves, which was compounded by a number of factors including covid and the rise of easily disseminated misinformation, but honestly? Nah. Not happening at this point.
Well as someone who lived in former Yugoslavia I can tell you nobody back then expected civil war to happen but it did anyway, it took 1 year from 1990 to 1991 and one election for everything to spiral out of control, so trust things can go sour extremely quickly
Thank you for that reality check.
Except many, many predicted it would after Tito died. The Balkans were an ethnic powder keg that once set off a world war. Tito worked miracles to keep it together and independent in the Cold War.
The new movie "Civil War" is basically a commentary on the absolute horror of what comes in a civil war itself and how the civilians are the ones who truly suffer. It deliberately avoids talking about why the civil war happened or the reasons for the alliances of certain states because that's not really the point, it's about war journalists just going from place to place, seeing the horrors that the war has brought about.
If we lost the supply chain the deaths from food shortages and a lack of healthcare would drastically outnumber combat losses by a wide margin.
I went to see it when it was released a few weeks ago here in Canada. Holy Crap it was intense 😳
The problem isn't that there are "two sides", its the problem of "us vs them". We have leaders who say that anyone who does not think the exactly same or do everything the same is "them". When everyone becomes "them" everyone is your enemy. Its not hard to imagine someone firing up a group to commit violence. And even easier to imagine people who would seek "justice"
I disagree with your claim that elections in the US don't set the country up for decades. presidential elections lead to supreme court appointments. and recent new justices were comparably young. they will be very influential for decades to come
I think he's thinking individuals and not on a party scale
Senate Term limits still aren’t a thing either.
@@aubreyhuff46 it is individual justices that have influence for decades
We are still dealing with the detrimental effects of Reaganomics. Carter put solar panels on the White House and Reagan ripped them out. Imagine if, when we were already dealing with an oil crises in the US, we moved to solar and wind energy at that time.
I would argue that decades is an underestimate of the effects of decisions.
@@jurgnobs1308 not necessarily. It's all based on parties not the individuals. If we get enough democrats or republicans in all three branches for long enough, then the check and balance could be thrown out the window, allowing for that sorry to be able to change rules as they wish or make new ones up without much in the way of opposition
Think we’d mostly likely see insurgency style like the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland
You mean the forced indoctrination by the British?
Or the Years of Lead. That's what I thought and also what the Warographics video says.
Except Northern Ireland was severely lacking weapons and ammunition. To the point that it had to be smuggled in. The US has no such limitations.
@@JaggedEmpire1 not at all relevant to the point I am making.
@@r.b.rozier9692 How is it irrelevant?
Wake up, have a meh day at work, instantly made into a great day by the Mr Terry/Whistle Boy crossover
"Ours is very tame" dude, I'm from Canada where the head of the opposition got ejected from Question Period in Parliament for calling our Prime Minister a wacko this week. Your government is insane.
That's because your Canadians got no nuts and guts
I've seen people saying Pierre being removed for refusing to rescind that comment as the final fuse for revolution
You think it's a valid reason to eject someone?
@@r.b.rozier9692 I think little pee pee has been in politics long enough to know the result, and used it to make a show for his low i.q. followers.
Dude, YOUR government is insane for ejecting a sitting politician for using words.
Let me reiterate that. A SITTING POLITICIAN got EJECTED for vocalizing a string of specific syllables.
THAT is insane. I'll stay in the U.S. where I'm allowed to say words and I'm allowed to own arms.
Honestly I'm not so sure were totally on the outside of a violent conflict. I mean your points make sense but I cant shake the unnerving feeling that the country isn't really together and maybe that's just my individual experience. i just see the opposing sides being continually aggravated and incited by the other. if anything I don't think it will be a full on civil war but more like the Irish conflict with more individual atrocities being committed against the other while the govt tries to keep the fire to a minimum. idk. lmk what you think!
Yeah, I kinda think it's just a general overreaction, there isn't exactly a nation-wide dispute that is integral to a states' identity that'd warrant succession from the US to escape it.
The important thing to keep in mind is that people are quick to complain but slow to actually do anything counter to their actual status quo. We're not really any more divided than we've ever been, we just have social media (and a mainstream media focused on scaring us to sell ads) telling us we are. The majority of people are realistically more focused on sports than a possible civil war.
Is that actually happening in real life, or just social media? Even something like the Troubles happening in the U.S. seems like the realm of fantasy
@@Xynth25This is true what you see on social media can change your perception on reality. Doesn't help how some people can have circles online that radicalize them to positions and cause echo chambers to form.
And then you have the 'pot stirrers' who don't care which side it is so long as they cause someone to have a reaction.
Like most people, I pray there is no such conflict.
Also, it's not just social media. While social media absolutely amplifies fear, there is tons of protests, both peaceful but also violent, all over the country righ tnow, especially in major areas like New York City and Washington DC. I've wanted to visit Nwe York City, but after these past four years I refuse to for a good long time.
Where Simon said a spiral of increasingly violent reprisals sounds a lot like gang-related violence in the inner cities. One gang has several members beat up some members of another gang, a few days later members of the latter gang gang armed with baseball bats, pipes and the like do a savage beat down on the members of the former gang, a few days after that a few members of the former gang armed with knives viciously stab and slash some members of the latter gang, a few days after that a couple members of the latter gang armed with handguns shoots a couple of members of the former gang in a parking lot. After a few months of increasingly violent reprisals a city block erupts in a firefight that started when a few members of the formers and latters take pot shots at one another, which quickly escalates as members of both gangs roll up and start blazing the block up. SWAT teams quickly respond, members of both gangs wind up dead, in jail, permanently crippled and/or on the run from the law. Nightly news broadcasts from news companies wanting to generate more ratings run all sorts of fluff pieces. A few years later rappers who were not affiliated with either gang but grew up in those areas drop some albums that talks about the problems that led to such gang violence. A couple of years after that a bunch of wannabes start adopting the look and mannerisms of these gangs while dropping albums where they brag about the things they've never done like they've done them. Rap beefs start because the agents of these rappers push them into it so that better album and merchandise sales gets generated, which inevitably results in a few of the rap beefs going too far, and we wind up with another Pac and Biggie.
On a more serious note, we need to look to the decades leading up to our civil war to use as a litmus test for the plausibility of another civil war. We had a government that refused to directly confront the growing problems and essentially kept kicking the can down the road, violence erupting in the halls of government, increasingly violent reprisals that wound up leading to a succession crisis and open rebellion. We're not seeing that happening yet, but it is a plausibility that it could happen. History never repeats, but it often rhymes.
Telling a politican to stop kicking difficult problem cans down the road is like telling a student to stop procrastinating.
@@anathardayaldar No, you have a chance with the student. I'd say it's more like telling the rain to stop being wet.
A very insightful comment, thanks for the food for thought.
Whoever sides has the most guns wins. Rainbow flags and cheap katanas aint gonna do jack against bullets.
I’m a history buff and I been thinking about this especially after today’s conflicts and after I saw the movie Civil War. Great vid and stay blessed! 🙏🏽✊🏽💙
Heyyyy Simon and Mr.Terry!!!! Two of my favorite creators, awesome to see this!!!!
Congressional term limits aren't a thing, so individuals can in fact influence government for decades. He's spent 39 years in the Senate, in fact. He's had a lot of influence. Plenty of other members of Congress have served for decades in Congress, too. And Supreme Court Judges are a lifetime appointment unless they voluntarily resign or retire or are impeached and convicted.
I respect Terry's view, but disagree with a lot of what he said. For example, he said most people aren't struggling to pay their bills and buy food. That's just flat out wrong. Inflation is going insane right now and isn't slowing down, and people aren't getting paid anymore. More people are struggling to make ends meet in the country right now since the great depression. I don't have the numbers to prove that it's as bad or worse than that era so I don't want to make a claim I can't back up, but if something isn't done about it it WILL get there.
Shoplifting is through the roof, retailers are struggling, partly due to theft, partly due to difficulties getting inventory to sell. Many of them are buying up stuff they normally wouldn't sell, to be able to fill shelves.
In western PA, in the counties around Pittsburgh, over 140 bank branches have closed since the beginning of 2023.
Inflation has totally slowed down for quite a while.
@@specialnewb9821 Slowed down doesn't change the big spike that they had to deal with earlier. it also compounds based on the worse earlier inflation. it also is heavily biased towards inelastic goods like rent and food. and the terrible inflation is just one issue of several that impact the economy.
I think one of the big dangers of Social Media, in this context, is that it allows people to completely isolate themselves in echo chambers, only listen to their own brand of political opinion with no diversity of thought, and can much more easily rile each other up and radicalise.
You ask how could you counter the us military. You have two generations of veterans who fought gorilla combat and have a very good understanding the development and deployment of things such as IED hit and run tactics. With honestly more technology and better resources than an enemy the us forces faced for 20+ years
In a fair number of scenarios, the weapon manufacturers (workers not the corporation) defect alongside a large number of veterans. If the non-rebelling side wishes to avoid facing an equally well equipped adversary within a short years time they would have to commit to a fast strike on either the manufacturers (crippling their own post conflict military industry) or target population centers (destroying their reputation in resorting to such a thing to quickly and potentially sparking further revolts and schisms).
The civil war movie is pretty good. Its not about what side is bad or whatever, that's why the sides don't makes sense, because were not supposed to be rooting for a specific side. The whole point of the movie is that civil war is bad and all side suffer
Haven't seen it yet, but I've seen some breakdowns on it that show the movie is def. not a grift or trying to wind people up. If anything, it seems aimed at winding people down.
What in the absolute hell. How is the first comment I see is someone advertising their 40k/week multi-level fraud scheme.
I think it's similar to native Texans. We always talk (at least when I lived there for first 21 years growing up) about becoming independent and internet seems to support that but the likelihood of it ACTUALLY happening is MINISCULE. One thing that does concern me is the violence in an around last election reminded me of Gracci Brothers in Rome Republic History so.....but that was still 75ish years before Julius Caesar.
Good video as always
Very reasonable assessment. We need more teachers like you.
That would be really cool to look into! Polling has a lot of problems and that would be fascinating to see
I wasn’t really on board with your very linear and non-open-minded assessment of the potential for this conflict and basically writing off the possibility of it to the minds of crazies, but you really lost me when you brought up that age old while you can’t beat the United States military nonsense when she has that question to Afghanistan or the Iraqi insurgencesure we beat the Vietnamese army, but Vietnam gave us a run for our money as well. I don’t think we really need to keep giving examples after examples to provide people with the concept that a conventional military has a very very difficult time fighting force on force with asymmetrical warfare.
Now imagine the conventional military fighting an insurgency if a large proportion of the weapons manufacturers defect to the insurgents.
Present bias, yes, I've noticed that but didn't have the name for it. It seems like if you ask any random person who the best or worst president ever was, you'll get a name within the last 2 or 3. Also, every election is somehow "the most important" ever.
Mr. Terry, you miss the reality of 5th generation warfare. In the current paradigm of war, the battlefield is in the courtroom, the internet and the minds of the people. Far less bloodshed and far more vitriol.
Civil War is awesome Mr T, should definitely check it out the last like 20 mins are intense
Took me a second to realize youeant Mr Terry and not the guy that was in "The A Team".
somehow in that civil war movie they made cali and texas is working together
Not *really* that farfetched in a situation you've got someone blatantly stealing power. Both states claim to be bastions of liberty. Realistically it's the producers not wanting to look like they're picking a side.
I mean it makes sense with the point of the movie, the don want people rooting for a specific side
Because the commiefornians invaded Austin
Just look at the factions (and factions within factions) of the Spanish Civil War and WW 2's Eastern Front. Texas + California's not as crazy as it sounds.
Lots of unknowns an uncertainties on this topic, but it's good to hear your perspective.
Lol almost all of this dude's example involve the right being the aggressors in one way or another. Lol
9:27 I remember the first time I watched British parliament… It looked like Jerry Springer except the audience was better dressed. There’s no decorum or courtesy it’s just a prize fight with no agreed upon rules. Compared to CSPAN it’s crazy.
When I was young and stupid, I was reading a book called "World War III", in the Tom Clancy style, if not himself. My teacher saw it, took a quick look and said it was too distressing to think about. He was raised in the era of duck&cover and the red scare so WW3 was a very real possibility. For me it was just a cool story set in ancient history.
When this new modern civil war movie came out, even as it got alot of press, I couldn't bring myself to watch any reviews or reactions. It has a non-zero probability of it actually happening seems very real as I watch the news today. It just gives me depression.
I'm not talking about the plot details like if California ally with Texas. I mean just the idea that americans would actually form armies against each other, all because each of their propaganda fueled echo chambers spiraled into maddness.
At last count, 12 states have tabled bills for secession, in their state assemblies, since 2018. The people of the United States are not united. We've seen politicians murdered at the state and local levels, in several states...drive-bys at campaign offices.
That last point is interesting. If several of the states were to secede, would the federal government send in the military to reconquer them? If they did, how many soldiers would be willing to shoot at people who were once their countrymen? Their friends? Their family? Especially if the states that seceded didn't strike first?
It happened once already. So yes it can happen again.
Their ability to pull the trigger is based on how deeply they believed what was being told them.
@@tylerian4648 I would expect the states to call home state residents that were members of the US military, offering them positions of similar, or higher, rank in their National Guard units.
Many of the states that have those secession acts, in their state assemblies are referring to them as "national divorce".
MonsieurZ recently did a great video on a potential American civil war, he used to do videos about how the republicans would win outright because guns but this video is dramatically more understanding
that guy is a nut job just like the republicans he worships
My old coworker leans left and I lean right, he calls himself, "Socially liberal but fiscally conservative". Agree on most talking points and see the bipartisan system as a large issue in the country.
Waropraphics are awesome. One of my favorite channels!
I never knew he had a war channel, he has too many channels, but I love all of Simon's videos.
@@anthonyledel2072 His channels are like pokemon, gotta catch them all.. Tho warographics is my favourites and most informative. Many of the topics are put on the knife edge and are very speculative. So it is rather important to pay attention to understand what exactly is being said.
Nothing they say is accurate. Might wanna look at something else
@@DemocracyOfficer2485 That is a bold and untrue statement. You should try fact checking what they state as facts... or not watch a video where the topic is pure speculations.
Y’all don’t understand how happy I am for this crossover. I love Simons videos 👌🏼
I love warographics
I find Simon everywhere on UA-cam😂😂 His casual criminalist channel is great.
When you say the video is vasaline covered you should click 1080p again cause youtube buggs for some reason...
37:19 if your watching the civil war movie for the politics no. i think the theme of the movie is supposed to focus on how a civil war would affect civilians
Lol at 22:17 when were finally done with simons intro haha. His writers are notorious for long intros, on his more unbuttoned channels he complains about their long intros
I told you to keep the intros shorter or I am going to tighten the chains and turning down the heat in the blazement
I think that is the foundation of America. Our legislative policies are either in incredible baby steps(We are finally now just DECLASSIFYING marijuana) or incredibly large steps(civil rights act). It's interesting what the next few generations bring, because I, being 28, was just young enough to remember that and having that be one of my main catchphrases, which is obviously American. The 9/11 era is done with too. America is at peace for once but it doesn't really feel like it, and there is so many things anyone can choose to grow up on now. It's very interesting because technology is advancing at a rate that we can't even really study yet because it keeps accelerating.
I think a lot of people would say "Tweet" about how another civil war is coming and to be careful on which side of the conflict you are on. But if it actually came down to a fight breaking out, like 95% of people wouldn't participate and the war wouldn't last that long.
Firstly, Civil War is a movie about journalists that happen to be traveling cross country during a thing. It's not a movie about a civil war.
Second, I've spent literal years studying and wargaming these ideas. There's no positive outcome. There's no drawn out war or series of battles. It's complex, but the results aren't. The military isn't made up of mindless robots, the majority of weapons and resources are in the hands of one side, and the only technical win scenario for any other side is the deployment of nuclear weapons on American targets. Which would leave a few people to victoriously rule over a graveyard while the rest of the world looks on in horror as the fallout blots out the sun for a few years.
A Second Civil War is a fun thought experiment, but with 20+ million veterans, 85+ million firearm owners (most of which lean towards one end of the political spectrum), 450-650 million firearms in those firearm owners' hands, 5+ trillion rounds of ammo, a country as large and resource rich as the US, with a modern military entirely reliant upon the resources produced by that population, and hundreds of layers of people between those that would issue the order and those that would carry them out, ALL capable of refusing... Nah. It's not in the cards.
You have 3 players at the table. 1 is there because of the other 2 and can't place their own bets. 1 is there because they brought the cards, the table, the chips, the chairs, and booze. The 3rd is there because they know how to shuffle and deal. Civil war isn't in anyone's cards aside from talking crap at the table.
It would be a more complex, messy and violent Spanish civil war IMO. Factions within factions, often fighting their own when not fighting the enemy and people being drafted into whatever army controlled their area regardless of their politics. There would be no winner, just survivors.
Have you ever reacted to a video currently making the rounds (again) on UA-cam reaction channels: "The Star Spangled Banner As You've Never Heard It"? I would be interested to hear your thoughts about it and the effect it has on YT reaction hosts. For my own opinion, I can only say it was definitely told as I had never heard the story told before, and I vastly prefer the version I learned in school.
Also, who the fuck wants to become a smaller, albeit "independent" state in the modern era? America was lucky enough to expand and have the resources for just about every single thing you can want from a independent country. Europe is still divided, and we are watching those consequences.
I know they say it is our fault but the world isn't getting smaller. It's only getting larger. I want to know what is going to happen in Europe with their lack of resources in general... how does a divided europe survive going forward, it'll be interesting
Where is the term limit for the Senate and the House? We have a nursing home role call going on in Congress
Well, they'd have to vote for one, so I doubt we'll ever see that
Social media seems to allow for the polarization of society. I'm old enough to remember the days where I could sit down, with a friend on the opposite side of my personal political views, and have a discussion, and respect their views, and vice versa. Agree to disagree sort of thing, sometimes, they could say something i haven't thought of and think it makes sense, sometimes it was the other way around. Those days seem to be long gone now unfortunately.
You’ve got to watch the old school British show Blackadder, you’d love it
Let's see what the US Supreme Court will interpret concerning the immunity for the holder of the Executive Office to be exempt from prosecution while in office.
Sadly, I think another civil war is more likely than not. It isn't because there aren't mechanisms in place to help prevent one, but because these mechanisms are being used less and less. However, despite what most seem to think, I doubt it'll be a political civil war where it's the Reds vs. the Blues, it'll be a socio-economic civil war.
You don't have to travel the US that much to see that there is a strong degree of divide in economic natures in the country. What's even worse is that the country is so large that there can't truly be a singular set of economic policies for the country as a whole (in anything but the broadest sense), but it needs to be a set of semi-regionalized policies that are adapted to each economic region. Here's the problem that I've seen, certain......highly influential portions of the country are trying to force economic policies that they believe in (whether or not they work locally) on the entire nation, regardless of how detrimental they will be to other economic regions. This causes economic instability, and frequently economic decline, in those other regions, which leads to push-back against the economic regions those policies originated from. These push-backs have gradually become more and more severe, and I do see it eventually leading to some economic regions deciding to separate from the union, which will trigger a wave of several splits.
Now, as for how the splits will happen.....it'll be anything from a 3-way split to a 7-way split, and will mostly follow certain groups of states for each split (though there will probably be a few states that end up splitting between two different regions). The real question here, though, is will one of these regions decide that it needs to 'keep' control of one of the others by any means necessary, including war, or not, because if any of those regions invades one of the others it will definitely trigger a free for all between all of the regions attacking their neighboring regions, mostly to try to 'prevent' those regions from attacking them first.
Yes, I can potentially see the split happening in such a way as to ease the current socio-economic tensions and actually preventing a civil war, but, unless we find a way of easing those tensions soon, as things currently are a split is definitely coming, and probably another civil war with it as I do have difficulty seeing all of the regions being willing to just let it happen.
You'll see red/blue more based on regional boundaries, rather than political boundaries...it won't be red states vs blue states.
@Ando2k10 What was the point in replying with what I stated? Wait, let me guess, you actually think it'll end up being Red regions vs. Blue regions? No, when it happens, the political parties, as we currently know them, will collapse and cease to be. There won't be any form of Red vs. Blue. Or didn't you notice that when a Blue region tries pushing their economic policies on a Red region, the Blues in the Red region typically side with their Reds, and not with the foreign Blues? Most of the 'push' to adopt the foreign Blues policies with that Red region comes from Blues who are not native to that region, almost as if they were invaders.
Colombian here. While I like warographics he leaves out a lot of context from the Bogotazo.
TLDR/ Colombia during the Bogotazo is not comparable to the USA.
Before the killing of Gaitan the country was heavily divided amongs the working class and wealthy elites. One of the problem at the time was grievances rural communities had due to the unfavorable land distribution that historical happened after the independence in Colombia. Due to this there was a big chunk of rural society that was demanding a land reform, something that the establisment didn´t want to do as that would affect wealthy land owners.
Along side this the Colombian government was very favorable to foreing companies to the point of overlooking abuse inflicted upon rural peasants. The most famous case of this was of the United Fruit Company, a USA company that produced bananas (they have a lot of messy history here) which had its rural workers living in sub human conditions. Due to this the workers protested the conditions which prompted a response from the army which had soldiers gun down protesters by the docens (some historian speculate that they could have been hundreds but we dont know as many were buried in ditches). This event called "La masacre de la Bananeras" caused outrage at the time and even today you can find conservative politicians claiming it never happened.
Gaitan was an anti establisment liberal that ran on a populist platform that promised to enact a land reform and have a stricker stance against foreing companies. Needless to say he was trying to address deep rooted issues in society that bothered a lot of groups that were disenfranchised in a country that had a big issue of wealth inequality. When he was assasinated during his campaing for presidency everyone assumed that the conservatives killed him in a violent attack against the working class.
Hope this was helpfull and if there is any aclaration I can provide feel free to let me know.
They never bring up how crushing force of drones
To use a somewhat poor analogy; most of the ingredients for a civil war are present. But very little has been done to mix them into anything volatile.
To put it another way; in the years preceding the civil war, violence was not uncommon in between senators and representatives on the floor. Every government has loud, outspoken, members. When violence again becomes common on the Senate floor, that is when I'll begin to worry.
I think a civil war would be more a conventional total war than anything else for two reasons 1. "The Irish troubles" usually happens when one side dominates and the lesser force have to resort to guerrilla fighting, 2. The "oppressed" republican minority in Cali and "oppressed" dems in Texas will encourage both sides to confront the other more openly
I disagree, it's in "the oppressed minorities" best interest to deescalate things as much as possible, because if a full on civil war actually does kick off, those same "oppressed minorities" are going to be surrounded and outnumbered from the get go. Also as a side note, in my experience, supporters of the smaller party in very one sided states tend to be a fair bit more moderate than those who live in states dominated by their party, having the views they espouse challenged on a much more frequent basis, by people who they interact with in person, rather than through a screen. As it turns out most people are way more reasonable and level headed when they don't have the luxury of internet anonymity.
@@kennandunn7533why did you put oppressed minorities in quotation marks?
Also, stop calling it "the troubles" and call it what it is, one sovereign nation (Great Britain) oppressing and forcibly annexing another sovereign nation (Eire)
@@r.b.rozier9692take a guess buddy also most minority’s wouldn’t be a resistance since they rely on government money and don’t have a communal identity but at the same time white is the minority in Texas so I don’t know probably just collapse of America if civil war happens since it won’t be majority Americans
@@r.b.rozier9692 Yep. This is the thread you were in. Not the other one.
I think the apathy vs. radicalization dichotomy is the wrong one. In my experience, it's precisely when people conclude that there's no point to voting or protesting that they begin to support more forceful and violent means of accomplishing their political goals. I have been watching some radicalization happening on the left and there seems to be a distinct process of, "We've been protesting for 15+ years for the same political goals (universal healthcare, addressing the destructive effects of extreme economic inequality, etc.) and the government has given us almost none of what we've asked for. Clearly voting and protest don't work: direct action and revolution are needed."
I suspect this probably mirrors the thought process I've seen among conservative former friends and family members where they feel that society is moving further and further away from how they think it should be, and they are coming to believe more and more outlandish and extreme ideas about what they think their political opponents are doing behind closed doors. So they are increasingly feeling that at some point it will become necessary for them to pick up their arms to defend their families and their freedoms from a left-wing fascist government, and some of those folks came out on January 6th in the genuine belief that the election had been "stolen" by Democrats using fake votes and that all "real Americans" agreed with their feelings about how the country should be run.
The saddest and scariest part of what I've typed above is the word "former friends." I used to have a diversity of friends, but almost all of the conservatives I used to be friends with have stopped speaking to me since I became a politically active liberal. They believe so strongly that *their* side is the "force for good" that they have voiced disgust at my changed opinion and refused to believe facts I have shared with them that led me to change my opinion. I've also lost a few friends because they became radicalized in a leftward direction and could no longer tolerate my lack of 100% agreement with them on political matters.
So I can totally see where the worried parties are coming from. It's...real scary out there on the ground today. Social relations do not feel at all to me like they did fifteen years ago.
Politically I believe I classify as a right leaning libertarian and I agree with everything you said except for the jab about the conspiracy theory thing. MK Ultra, the Tuskegee experiment, the testimony of nayirah on international TV in the 90's, operation snow white (scientoligists infiltrated the us government) operation mockingbird. There's 5 conspiracy theories from the last 100 years that people screamed about during the years they were active, labeled lunatics...and lo and behold they were true. Sure the government punished all the people involved and everything, but this the same government that spent 300 million dollars in the 80s to replace the m16 rifle with one that had accuracy improvement equivalent to 100% and the winner ended being an m16 with what became the ACOG sight on top. They spent 300 million, letting 4 weapons manufacturers design new rifles AND ammo....to create the ACOG, and then when congress launched an investigation regarding the spending geuss what they determined? That the government did nothing wrong. Anybody who thinks they aren't doing shady shit to line their pockets in the background is kind of a fool. It's not unique to the U.S, every governing body in history has done "conspiracy theory" things.
Totally with you: I used to be Conservative, till I realized that I am the kind of person that the "Family Values" people consider a threat to democracy and Western Civilization as we know it (also because of a lot of censorship stuff that in retrospect looks tame next to modern book bans), and so I ended up as a weird Left-Leaning Centrist who has a lot more Liberal and Progressive friends. I had to stop going to fellowship after Mass at the Catholic Church we go to, which is chock-filled with Conservatives, after I overheard people talking about how the Church needs to excommunicate all "the Gays", and even heard people saying "the Gays" with the kind of hushed tone that children would use when talking about "the boogeyman" (this is why I am a firm believer in separation of Church and State working *both ways*, dammit).
@@MatrixRefugee I'm so sorry you've had to deal with that also. I also used to be Catholic and stopped attending church when I realized the church was never going to do anything but make things worse for my trans friends who, at the time 15 years ago, were really struggling to get help for their gender dysphoria. The church's stance was basically "the only thing wrong with you is that you're confused and/or rebelling against God's will, shut up and sit down."
Right around the same time the Republican Party came out with its rabid "death panels" misinformation campaign to try to torpedo the first serious attempt at universal healthcare in America, so I ended up leaving both at the same time. At which point my conservative friends started using terms like "betrayal" and "disgusted" and "gone over to the Dark Side" in reference to my actually wanting all people to have medical care.
I saw the Civil War movie a few weeks ago and I'm in Canada. It's very intense and happens because the government turned the military on civilians. And civilians take out the president. There is a press team trying to get to the Whote House to get the killshot of the president photo but they encounter some crazy shit getting there. It was pretty intense
The movie is pretty good. It's a movie about war journalism, but it is not really a war movie. But it's quite impactful, and the sound design is incredible. It's not based on any current political divisions. It's ambiguous and assumed that the president is bad somehow, and some American states have seceded and declared war to remove him from power. The story is really focused on the effect on the journalists and how desensitised they are to the horror around them.
Rural v Urban.
Rural tries to starve out urban areas.
Urban ports deny trade to rural areas.
Rural would also rudely find out that they need 10,000 bullets per person. it would get ugly quickly, and that they're reliant on the machinery to run their farms from urban area manufacturing. Rural people might start a scorched-earth program, and find themselves starving along with their enemies.....
@@RMSTitanicWSLwe save bullets. You obviously never met someone who loves guns. An we could do all that our selfs if we get a base to do it at. Hell we could it ourselves an there would probably be former military members on both sides. We could do it
Cute story, bro. Tell that to anyone who fought in Vietnam. A lot of those guys could use a belly laugh.
Civil War would've been AMAZING as a satire ala Dr. Strangelove.
Clip of one guy yelling at politician - I think that is known as PMs Questions in the UK, Question Time in Australia and Question Period in Canada. It is considered part of the political process. Tuesday April 30th's Question Period was a bit of a sh--storm. The benches are 2 sword lengths apart - as part of tradition.
The death threats that politicians are getting are new, though. One Canadian MP posted the death threats he was getting on his answering machine. Two British MPs have been murdered in recent years.
Troubles - housewife Annie Maguire was wrongfully convicted by the British for being Irish and in the wrong place. Learned this during a Canadian HOC debate.
can u react to politics with paint videos? their videos have a lot of history would be interestinng to see how accurate it is. also kraut and h0ser be interesting too
I get your point but the gap between Left and Right gun-ownership is not anywhere near as wide as people think.
The closest thing to a Civil War I could ever conceive of being possible wouldn't actually be a left vs right, red vs blue scenario necessarily, but rather the people, regardless of affiliation, vs the federal government which is in an admittedly roundabout way how the actual Civil War played out. There would need to be some sort of extremely divisive decision made, whether it be an election or new legislation, etc. That being said, the checks and balances of how our government operates tend to balance out potential scenarios like this and that balance only gets stronger as time goes on. As stated in the video, there have been plenty of examples of extreme civil unrest and partisanship in our history that never amounted to a full blown conflict and there's no reason to believe that word ever change.
“If it bleeds, it leads”.
The dividing line in a new civil conflict would be the exurbs.
Yeah, the same people saying we are on the brink of a second civil war is pretty much the same kind of people waiting for Armageddon… I already saw that movie and is great 😅
The one with Bruce Willis?
I lean Democrat, voted for Whitmer, amash, against meijer and I want to move to texas... like you said it is ultimately about money. Like money is pouring into Texas and Florida, but the least of my concerns is worrying about demanding the same lifestyle, everyone understands different states are different. And the bigger issue is that no one in Texas is trying to say stay out of any states. People say it sure. But remember(not you Terry), how many people in 2015-2016 who said that they would leave America if trump won actually left? And danger in 2020? Real life isn't the internet.
To have full understanding of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, first have to look at the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and 1921 Peace Treaty. The Act partitioned North and South of Ireland, which was also known as the Fourth Home Rule Bill. Belfast would have it's own Parliament as would Dublin, and what was suggested in the Long Report 23 counties for the South and 9 for the North, but instead, because the extra 3 counties for the North were Catholic, and to keep an overwhelming Protestant majority in the North, the South were to get the extra Catholic 3 counties. And also partition wasn't just thought of in this 1920 Act, it was talked about in 1912 as an Answer to the Irish Question.
9:06 yep in Georgia that always happens
41:30 It's apathy for me.
So most of that moving really doesn’t have much to do about war it’s mostly cameraman falling people around
Also for a lot of people stuck behind computer screens (nothing is real), an Armageddon scenario seems like almost an Improvement??? I mean action (however horrific) is often more satisfying (seemingly) than the stays quo.
Not status quo, gradual decline or gradual worsening of the situation work better.
I have an orson Scott card book series on a political civil war in current times. His politics are infused in it but he’s pretty spot on what it would look like imo.
Considering international tensions rising and conflicts becoming more common
With all that another war will get the US involved before a civil war can happen like another invasion of the Middle east
What happens when the majority of the people capable of fighting are opposed to going to war with country X in opposition to the government?
If we fall into civil war it won't be red state vs. blue states. Rather it's going to be mostly the rural areas and conservative suburbs and exurbs vs. the cities and the liberal suburbs and exurbs. Who wins will depend upon which side would the federal government take?
Until Polls arent specific to an area, because Purple State, or Swing State, or big ballot measure area, and its literally, every person across, or vast majority of the country actually partakes in said polls, the "Slice" is bad and not indicative of the whole. Overall, still love the video and breakdown!
I think one thing that heavily discourages a civil war from ever breaking out is that people don’t like to gather anymore.
Like… there might be a massive amount of discontent or outright hatred for opposing sides. But unless you get a “critical mass” of people in a single place to try and kick off a conflict, I just don’t foresee it happening organically.
Like. I don’t see all the keyboard warriors of today getting together in a size large enough that a war could break out. And even if say a whole state declared war on the nation or some nonsense, I’m almost certain a sizable portion of said state would be like “This is crazy, our politicians are stupid and corrupt.”
Lastly… there isn’t anyone left alive who remembers a time before the U.S. was unified. Back when the Civil War broke out it was only like 1 generation previous that the country didn’t even exist. Adding states and territories was an ongoing and divisive process. Hell when was the last time you can remember a state having a debate over borders with other states? The sense of shared identity is still leaps and bounds above where it was back during the Civil War.
I have had deep discussion with random Canadian yt commenters about my state joining Canada in event of a breakup. We have a plan!
On a more serious note, the US is becoming a flawed democracy and political violence is gaining acceptance. Foreign and domestic elements see the path to power in enflaming social divisions. And of course we have long term issues that will only stress society more.
I think it more likely the country will crack up than fight each other.
People who have to much free time and most of their needs met are worried about the next Civil War! Everyone else have other things to worry about.
100%
38:19 the same any oppressive states gets countered?
Greetings from Europe. 2 recommendations: Fareed Zakarias new book "Age Of Revolutions". Bernardo Bertoluccis movie "1900". And 2 points that weren't mentioned: The gigantic US-debt. And the accelerating climate-change, both factors that could dunk US-prosperity within a too short time to cushion the impact. Is there a chance for civil war in the US? Idk but situations can change rapidly in a direction no one expects. Part of my family lived at the Yugoslavian border. They were our neighbors. When civil war erupted, people here were in total disbelieve. And right now I´m just a couple of hours (by car) afar from the Ukrainian frontlines, which is also in part a civil war. If you have told me three years ago, that in the coming 36 months hundreds of thousands of people would die in a war in Europe, I would have called you a weirdo.
California people that moved to Texas are moving out of Texas. Boomer and genx are moving out of Florida. I can sell my house in Florida and get a house 3x the size with 3x the property in Tennessee
love some of Simon's content but his editors are... spotty lately. the blurry filter/focus on some are a problem. background music volume levels have been one we went to war in the comments over, that and some AI stock use lately.
Civil War was a great movie you gotta watch it!
11:45 Every country? Really. Name another western democracy where violence as a political tool is proposed by people in parliament.
I’d like you to react to the video, “The man who saved 200,000 lives” by BritMonkey- though it’s a bit different than your usual fare.
!!SPOILER!!
It talks about Smallpox, and how a man you’ve (probably) never heard of is directly responsible for its irradiation.
Our actual civil war challenges your entire position against a future civil war. We weren't financially decimated, we weren't led by a dictator, etc. It's not like the civil war was started by a slave uprising. It was the rich of 1 group trying to undermine the rich in group 2 and their ability to generate massive profits for little investment.
I'm not sure if it would happen soon, but historically we know beyond a doubt that it is inevitable. And between the financial state of the country and the political views, it's something we've decided to rush headlong into. It's been a made a lot worse by the media being taken over by extremists. Recently the movie Civil War released and there were many people in the media pushing the movie purely for the premise. Yet they were also really disappointed that it didn't press the issues in the movie further and some on top of those that were actually cheering for it to come to pass. That's scary to think about. They may not openly be calling for war or the deaths of those they call rivals, but they were and still do heavily imply it.
The reason you have this heavy one sided, who would spark the war weight, is because of who is stirring up the pot for it. Whose been stirring up the pot and how are they portraying the other side.
It is movie not based in reality - I mean California and Texas join forces?
I wouldn't want a second Civil War so much as I would want the 50/50 split to go away and have one political party become the strong majority across the country-- er, wait.
After the flash reference...,,
Problem is when someone pushing it by the small bits and then let the spark go. (btw ukraine in 2014 is civil war)
"our congressional discourse is very game compared to other countries" thank you! ya some countries like pre war ukraine and some asian countries will have a brawl in there equivalent of the halls of congress.
People who think we’re close to something violent don’t know much American history or are very young and haven’t been able to fully grasp it yet.
We had MLK assassinated, JKF assassinated, RFK assassinated, the kKK was a functioning organization, the black panthers were a real armed group, Vietnam caused massive civil unrest that led to events such as at Kent State, the Oklahoma City bombing (90’s I know but the ideology of the bombers was that of the far right militant movement that came from the 70s and had lone radicalized wolves under the surface), and I could go on for hours. We haven’t had anything even close to these levels of armed partisans and political violence that occurred in the 60s and 70s. Does anyone think we were close to ‘civil war’ back then?
A unilateral attack is considered a cowardly and inhumane attack universally and is very likely to be prosecuted by government authorities regardless of the state. No one would be able to continue their life without legal consequences or outing themselves to the general populace as radical and dangerous, after contributing to such events.
There are more guns than people here and STILL political violence is not a reality we live in. People are not in a position where it makes any sense to throw your life away for such petty and pointless things. Only the mentally unstable and ill are willing to do such things.
There has been a largely quiet yet reliable moderate push in camps from both sides of the aisle, in reaction to growing discontent with chaotic political wings that only seem to stir up controversy where none existed before.
Bleeding Kansas was ALREADY HAPPENING before the Civil War began. The Kia Boyz and theft groups along with covid and parents not being able to find care for their children out of school is not similar experiences. I forget what bias that is, but it's really frustrating to me.
Actually Mr. Terry it is both. I am both more apathic and depressed for the future, especially for my children who are coming of age in all this mess. I have never been more anti-republican in my life than now. I have also never felt more unable to stop the culture war nonsense going on than I ever have. What with media representation being the way it is and the personal rifts in family caused by it I do not look forward to a better future even though I keep trying for it.
Lot of it sounds kind of like the U.S. 60's and 70's, with the whatever liberation army, Black Panthers, and other armed groups.