Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 25, 2020 at 21:38 comment added Daniel Schepler From periodic scanning of the Wikipedia "this day in history" on the front page, I'm come to realize that there have been numerous times in the US that there have been riots and violence related to things like immigration, labor relations, race relations, etc. But in the past they've largely stayed localized, and/or died down after a time. What would need to change in order for one of these incidents to explode into a civil war? (Keeping in mind that a lot of civil wars haven't been primarily geographical the way the US Civil War was.)
Jan 25, 2020 at 10:53 comment added Dragongeek Personally I don't think an issue like abortion could cause a civil war because it's not financially charged enough. Nobody stands to make a huge profit (unlike civil war with slaves) and running a war on ideology alone isn't really a thing.
Jan 24, 2020 at 18:29 comment added WGroleau Numerous is debatable. If there have been a dozen times more than I have heard of, it is still a small percentage of idiots condemned by the movement in general. And an equally miniscule number on the other side. The idiots on both sides of the gun issue are far more numerous.
Jan 24, 2020 at 18:09 comment added NegativeFriction @WGroleau that's.... not accurate at all. There have been numerous reports of bombings and death threats in and around facilities that provide abortions or that are perceived as providing abortions. Planned Parenthood has been on the receiving end of a lot of violence.
Jan 24, 2020 at 16:29 comment added WGroleau In the right to life movement, the idiots who would kill to “protect life” are a miniscule minority. So this alone is unlikely to cause civil war.
Jan 24, 2020 at 11:17 comment added NegativeFriction @Miech But those people are in positions of power for years on end, and they can make sweeping changes that vastly affect the population. And keep in mind-- a civil war doesn't have to involve every single person. If 10% of the population wants to pick a fight with 10% of the population, that can be all it takes to start a slippery slope. Martial law gets declared, innocent people get caught in the crossfire, and suddenly you have the most effective recruiting tool ever to get more and more people into the conflict. The American Revolution was widely unpopular, but still happened.
Jan 24, 2020 at 11:11 comment added MakorDal Louis XVI was still very respected, apart from a margin of wealthy ideologues. That's why, until he was convinced to flew France with foreign help, the Republican government did not dare kill him. I suspect that the reason the Tzar and his family were killed discreetly and their body hidden is more or less the same.
Jan 24, 2020 at 11:01 comment added M i ech Not that common Russians had much better opinion of WWI in months preceeding February 1917. How it relates to your answer, I'm not sure if corrupt high profile politician is enough of a spark, elected politician IS elected by someone and as such can't be universally reviled they way Tzar Nicolaus or king Lous XVI were in months leading to revolutions ending their respective reigns.
Jan 24, 2020 at 10:50 comment added M i ech February revolution was massively accelerated by Russian defeats in WWI. Over course of WWI, soldiers in Tzar's army finally started seeing it for what it was: a conflict in which they risk their lives in awful conditions for no gain for themselves. That was a figurative spark which blew up the powder keg that has been growing larger and larger for over a century. October revolution happened because Provisional Government instated by February revolution didn't seem to improve anything.
Jan 23, 2020 at 20:30 comment added El El For some reason somebody in office reminds me of this... dunno...
Jan 23, 2020 at 20:01 history answered NegativeFriction CC BY-SA 4.0