US Civil War-This is how it begins?

Excerpts come from:
www.nbcnews.com...

The Supreme Court’s abortion decision is likely to set off a wave of legal and political disputes among states and the federal government unlike anything seen since the years before the Civil War, legal experts say.

With some states allowing private lawsuits against out-of-state abortion providers — and other states prohibiting cooperation with abortion investigations — the abortion issue is likely to pit state law enforcement agencies and court systems against one another in dramatic fashion.

Experts say it is conceivable that a person could be wanted for a felony in an anti-abortion rights state but protected from extradition in a pro-abortion rights state.

I hadn't thought about that one.......interesting development.

“What we had in the years leading up to the Civil War was a failure of what lawyers call comity, the idea that states will respect other states’ laws” for reasons of courtesy, consideration and mutual respect, said Ariela J. Gross, a professor of law and history at the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. “That starts to break down when you have these really stark differences over an issue involving a fundamental right, and that’s what happened in the years leading up to the Civil War.After the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, federal statutes required Northern states to assist Southern slave owners and their bounty hunters in capturing enslaved people who had escaped north to states that had banned slavery. But many Northern states passed laws to impede cooperation and enforcement.

The parallel to abortion is that “you literally are pursuing people across state borders for seeking medical care that is legal,” said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor of health law and policy at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. “It’s a completely mind-blowing concept.””

I don't know what to make of this. I would think a "real" "hot" civil war is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons. Truthfully, the US population bears no resemblance whatsoever to the population of the 1850's. I can't see slacker Millenials and prancing Trans people waging war on, say, Texas, Oklahoma or Louisiana. I could see the US military taking action, but......that would be a violation of Posse Comitatus. No one in Texas, Oklahoma or Louisiana is going to invade California to close the abortion clinics so......I can't quite visualize a hot civil war erupting over this issue.

Can anyone on ATS explain how this might go "hot"? The only thing I can quite postulate is the Feds inserting themselves into States affairs AFTER POTUS declares some type of Health Emergency and invokes some extraordinary war powers or executive powers to enable the Feds to step in and force the Clinics remain open and operating in violation of various States laws.

What says ATS???

a reply to: TonyS

We'll probably see some intentional mass casualty events over the abortion issue, and few will notice or pay attention to the reasons, as many of us are starting to see that kind of stuff as the status quo. 

a reply to: TonyS

The speed of information via the internet changes the entire playing field and fundamental concept of a civil war since the media's coverage would be completely lopsided as usual. Civilian videos would offer some insight during any altercation.

But anywho, I'd imagine it would go something like this:

After a series of moves from the right ( i.e. the recent Supreme Court rulings and similar ones that may follow ) the left will play its 2nd amendment hand like its never played before. Numerous high profile mass shootings choreographed by the FBI will lead to an anti gun campaign that will make the aftermath of Buffalo and Uvalde look microscopic. It will dominate the news cycle with lefties, talking heads, celebrities, musicians, etc all vomiting the narrative of repealing the second amendment with unprecedented fury.

Enough senators and congressmen are bought out to allow it. Biden throws down the gauntlet with an " emergency EO" to seize all privately owned firearms. That's when the fireworks start.

The poor bastards who are sent into red state homes to seize guns get obliterated. Red states support their citizens on the issue fully. The Feds and national guard are brought in but highly trained militias will shred them and use the natural chokepoints and other features of nature that out of towners are unaware of. Many of the national guard will defect rather than fire on their own countrymen.

Infrastructure can be destroyed and the government's henchmen would be useless. Try repairing a bridge under sniper fire. There will be no secession.

Only a complete government overhaul will be accepted at that point.

Have a nice day ATS!

I can't see it going "hot" - but there's a lot going on.

Just from my perspective- I'm pro-abortion and pro-gun. I like my rights, and I like other peoples rights- but their rights end where mine begin, and mine end where theirs begin.

So- a cold war? Let's see.
The big divides being pushed that *I* can see:
-pro gun vs anti gun
-pro abortion vs anti abortion

Thanks to religion, these two divides are generally grouped into people that hate abortions but love guns, and people who love abortions and hate guns. Now, this is obviously a VERY oversimplified statement, but that's how I see it being portrayed. I don't fit into either side of the argument, and I suspect a large number of other people don't either.

Assuming it IS that simple, lets complicate it.
In general, those two groups can be divided into liberals and conservatives.
In general, liberals migrate towards big cities, where conservatives avoid those areas.

From a voting perspective, the population is split more or less 50/50 between the two right now.

So, given a fair fight, it's people without guns vs people with. Liberals lose.
But War is never fair.
The cities get their resources from the country- if a real war broke out, the cities would simply stop getting supplies and they'd collapse within two weeks... with hardly a fight. Liberals lose.
BUT- the government is extremely liberal these days and can order the military to take action.... wheras the military is generally pro-gun (who would have thought) and at least half of them would refuse to take action against their own country.

I guess what I'm getting at is it's a mess- and while states can rant and rage against eachother all they want, most states have cities and the divide is at a much more local level than state to state. As the population in cities grows, the rural areas are losing their say in their own lives- and THAT is what is causing tension.

If anything, I'd see the states disbanding the federal jurisdiction before fighting eachother, and then it would be a war for who establishes the control.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If the feds try to confenscate the guns, I see a few dozen homes successfully taken. The news will get out and spread. Within the next hours, there will be no one attempting to enter any more homes as they will be incapacitated by the citizens defending themselves or the fear of such.

Then comes the march on Washington DC.

There was no war when the southern states seceded until the Union asked for its military bases back and the south said "no, the bases and weapons are now ours". So I think that's how it might play out again...some state or group of states finally secedes from the US, let's say Texas for sake of argument. There's nothing in the Constitution barring states from seceding, so it's technically legal, so I think they will do it eventually. The complication comes when the US asks the new country of Texas for their military hardware back, and Texas will (of course) say no. That's what will trigger Civil War II.

Same if it goes in the opposite direction with leftist states like California seceding. No problems with that until the US asks for Edwards and Vandenburg back and Cali says no. That's going to really be a problem...

Lots of nice fantasies being expressed here.

originally posted by: lordcomac
As the population in cities grows, the rural areas are losing their say in their own lives- and THAT is what is causing tension.

And as taxes and crime increase in the cities, all that can are leaving. When exactly are these cities going to begin growing again?

It can only go "hot" if they use agent provocateurs.

Meanwhile, the fringe lunatics that fan the flames will get more support from the MSM which are all in the pockets of billionaires from Bilderberg and the WEF. I'm guessing they want this to happen to install their new order of things.

The only way to crash a system effectively and take the blame off the rich and Wall Street is to divide the people and give them something to fight over.

I think they found their red herring.

PS: and it ain't Russia.

Anybody expecting actual war between the factions of US political theater isn't paying attention to how lazy our society is. Less than .5% (half a percent) of our total population participates in anything that isn't social media or consumer culture.

a reply to: lordcomac

I think you are onto something: I would however point out this rather interesting trend.
Your comment:
"As the population in cities grows, the rural areas are losing their say in their own lives- and THAT is what is causing tension."

I can't speak to other states, but in Texas its' actually a bit more complicated. I would refer you to:
www.demographics.texas.gov...

When net internal migration is examined, the
relationship between migration flows and
population size is not as straightforward. For
example, Dallas County has the state’s second
largest population but ranks last, at 254th, for net
internal migration. This occurs because Dallas
County lost more than 25,000 persons through net
internal migration. Thus, a large gross migration
stream does not necessarily lead to large population
gains because the outcome depends on the balance
between in-migrants and out-migrants.

So, actually, in some cases, in Texas, while new people move into the cities from other states and countries, more are leaving these cities.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

And as taxes and crime increase in the cities, all that can are leaving. When exactly are these cities going to begin growing again?

Some, a few, like Houston ARE growing, albeit slowly and the calculation is difficult. But the growth is by way of migrants from other states and countries, offset in part by people leaving.
See:www.demographics.texas.gov...

A good example is
Harris County. In the process of gaining 3,396
persons through total net migration, 160,730 new
residents moved to Harris County while 157,334
established residents moved out of Harris County.
Together, this in-migration and out-migration
represented a gross migration flow of 318,064
persons or 7.7 percent of the total Harris County
population. With this, gross migration produced a
7.7 percent ‘turnover’ in population even though
the 3,396 net migrants represented less than 0.1
percent of the total county population

Yea, it's "small" in terms of net growth.

Sorry doubtful.

Some rioting in blue cities sure, some protests elsewhere yup, civil war not likely.

To much else going on that is having a hard core impact on the day to day lives of people, crashing value of the dollar, rising costs of everything rampant crime in certain segments of the country are more likely in my opinion to trigger something.

All the people really tilting at windmills over the decision are by and large hardcores on both sides, the vast majority of the American people are somewhere in the middle. Politicians at the core just want to stay in power so unless they are in California, for example I dont see anyone risking their political career over a criminal wanted for a felony.

originally posted by: AgarthaSeed
a reply to: TonyS

The speed of information via the internet changes the entire playing field and fundamental concept of a civil war since the media's coverage would be completely lopsided as usual. Civilian videos would offer some insight during any altercation.

But anywho, I'd imagine it would go something like this:

After a series of moves from the right ( i.e. the recent Supreme Court rulings and similar ones that may follow ) the left will play its 2nd amendment hand like its never played before. Numerous high profile mass shootings choreographed by the FBI will lead to an anti gun campaign that will make the aftermath of Buffalo and Uvalde look microscopic. It will dominate the news cycle with lefties, talking heads, celebrities, musicians, etc all vomiting the narrative of repealing the second amendment with unprecedented fury.

Enough senators and congressmen are bought out to allow it. Biden throws down the gauntlet with an " emergency EO" to seize all privately owned firearms. That's when the fireworks start.

The poor bastards who are sent into red state homes to seize guns get obliterated. Red states support their citizens on the issue fully. The Feds and national guard are brought in but highly trained militias will shred them and use the natural chokepoints and other features of nature that out of towners are unaware of. Many of the national guard will defect rather than fire on their own countrymen.

Infrastructure can be destroyed and the government's henchmen would be useless. Try repairing a bridge under sniper fire. There will be no secession.

Only a complete government overhaul will be accepted at that point.

Have a nice day ATS!

You're onto something I almost ALWAYS overlook....the false flag operations; and two of you have mentioned that. I would guess you're alluding to something like the Las Vegas shooting. I always forget to factor that into my thinking.

So, I'd guess your most likely correct......we need to be on the lookout for some high profile correographed shooting operations. (I hate summer).

a reply to: Irishhaf

True; recent survey of US Citizens top concerns:
www.statista.com...
Abortion didn't make the list.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Anybody expecting actual war between the factions of US political theater isn't paying attention to how lazy our society is. Less than .5% (half a percent) of our total population participates in anything that isn't social media or consumer culture.

Hell not only that we got millions just trying to make enough to pay for a tank of gas. Sure Roe/Wade is a concern but most are just sunk their own lives, into their own survival.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Sorry doubtful.

Some rioting in blue cities sure, some protests elsewhere yup, civil war not likely.

To much else going on that is having a hard core impact on the day to day lives of people, crashing value of the dollar, rising costs of everything rampant crime in certain segments of the country are more likely in my opinion to trigger something.

All the people really tilting at windmills over the decision are by and large hardcores on both sides, the vast majority of the American people are somewhere in the middle. Politicians at the core just want to stay in power so unless they are in California, for example I dont see anyone risking their political career over a criminal wanted for a felony.

I agree there is a moderate center composed of both Democrats/Republicans and others, sooner or later it pushes back when we swing to extremes.

a reply to: TonyS

I still wonder how a state, for example, Texas, would actually be able to track down if someone had an abortion in another state that allows for them, especially if there is no inter-agency cooperation going on. I believe the federal government would have to step in to ensure open state borders and travel. I don't think, at the end of the day, any of the states will be able to enforce some of these bans. The only instance where I do see it happening is with business organizations who are willing to pay for flights and care to states that will allow an abortion, which at that point involves interstate commerce and becomes even more of a fustercluck.

I can't see widespread internal violence between groups.
I can see leftist protesters practicing violence.

one thing about gun confiscation; a lot of Law Enforcement types will NOT try to disarm the populace.

www.capitalgazette.com...

Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis has a message for Maryland lawmakers if they pass legislation regulating ownership of rifles and shotguns: His office will not comply.

“The way the bill is written, it is impossible to comply,” Lewis said Monday. “I can’t send (my deputies) on a suicide mission.”

If any of those bills required his deputies to take away guns for law-abiding citizens, Lewis said he wouldn’t do it.

Sending out officers to take guns away from law-abiding citizens will likely result in those citizens defending their rights and shooting the officers, Lewis said.

just one example

a reply to: TonyS

I don't think a civil war will be fought over abortion.

Attacks on 2A, to go along with all of the fraud, corruption and 2 tiered justice system though... Might do the trick.