does anyone think that there could be another American civil war?
396672
Yes, I certainly do. If so, it will be a war against christianity.
372052
That's a huge question.  You should do some research on causes of the Civil War - there are plenty of children's, students', and young adult books concerning the topic.\n\nTrying to be brief here... The Lincoln/Northern view was that the United States is a union first and a confederation second - in other words, once you're in the Union, you can't back out, otherwise the very strength of the Union, of the United States, is undermined.  If Lincoln had just said, "Oh, heck with it!  Good luck to you Southern states!", it would have made it difficult if not impossible to keep any other state from seceding for any reason whatsoever.  Lincoln and the North pressed the war in order to preserve the Union and establish the supremacy of nationhood over statehood.\n\nBesides, historians and economists in years since have speculated that, in time, the South and North would probably have reunited in some way anyway, as both regions would have had a mutual interest.
823748
maybe because the rebels declared war on the united states???   the civil war was one of the most important and awesome victories the UNITED STATES has ever had.... just think if the confedarcy had won....we would all be stupid bubbas watching nascar and bangin our sisters
928460
No, it was not viable then nor is it now.  The overarching point of the Civil War was whether a state could decide not to do something, and if it didn't like what the rest of the Union was doing, whether it could just stop being in the Union.  The answer was no.  That was not the point of our constitutional democracy (as opposed to the system under the Articles of Confederation, where the states were basically autonomous units.)  \n\nOn a personal note, would I myself be happier if, perhaps, Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana seceeded from the Union?  Perhaps.  Would the North have been economically better off if we had let the South go? Perhaps (save Texas and its oil, Florida and its tourism, and a few other resources). But we're all in this together.  The North would not have tackled the racial issues that sparked the civil war until much, much later.  The South probably would have imploded due to their lack of non-slave economy and innovation.  Certainly today a number of states could function as (much) less powerful independent states -- if Georgia (the former soviet republic) can do it, then Georgia (the state) can do it.  But once again, that's not the point.  America is great because of its bountiful natural resources and its diversity.  Once we fall into the trap of the Yugoslavias, the Iraqs, the "-stan" countries and fractionalize ourselves based on religion, poltiical belief, geography, etc., we become much much weaker.  The whole truly is greater than the sum of the parts in America, and we must keep it that way.
908672
As of right now the answer is no.  As far as I've been able to find out a number of the "supernaturals" aren't going to be featured in the "Civil War".  He does however have his own ONGOING series.  It is a good read and worth picking up.
516813
Political problems of today can seem somewhat similar to the days prior to the civil war because they are similar issues (we're not talking race here either).  The Civil War was fought over states rights -and the more the federal government wanted to take over or make mandates that the states had to follow, then the more states rebelled - the same thing is happening today.  The federal goverernment is dictating and that is hindering the  states rights which are guaranteed in the constitution.  So the Civil War's legacy is not the cause of the problems today, but the problems today are very similar in nature.  Good observation of your  part.
274050
I do not think an independent Southern Republic (ie: Confederate States of America) would be easy going or even terribly stable. I think it would be a continuing problem to the peace and prosperity of the Western Hemisphere.\n\nThe antebellum leaders of the American South were extremely expansionist, looking to add at least Cuba and Nicauragua as new slave states. The fast-profit method of cotton cultivation in the south was so wasteful and inefficient that the ariable land available would have diminished very quickly with the requirement for even more of Latin America to be seized. Because of the growing worldwide trend against Negro slavery, the traditional supply sources would have been unavailable. This would have inevitably required the extension of slavery to the indiginous Indian populations.\n\nThe Southern economy, again because of the quick-profit mentality, was dependent on outside sources for capital and for manufacturing. As a one-product economy, the CSA would have been the victim of the fluctuations of the foreign market for cotton. The federal blockade during the Civil War forced Europe to develop other sources of cotton (Egypt and South America) and this would have made those fluctuations even more traumatic. Transportation and Energy production in the South would have continued to lag with obsolete technology, again because of the quick profit mentality - and small government thinking. Public investment would have continued to be discouraged.\n\nEmancipation would never have happened, and the flight of runaway slaves to the USA would have increased. As a separate and unfriendly nation, the CSA would have very little influence on US policy. The USA would never condone the return of runaways to slavery and probable torture (although George W was born in Connecticut). This would have led to the requirement of a long and fortified border between the two countries, a further drag on both country's economies.\n\nThere is a definite possibility that the two countries would have fought on different sides in WWI (South with England, North with Germany). Imagine trench warfare along the Tennessee River. Regardless of outcome, South would probably have become a partial protectorate of England, certainly would depend on the Royal Navy for protection.\n\nNo, this would have been a bad thing.
18099
According to John Titor(who probably never existed) we will decline slowly into civil war; and the decent has already begun.  \n\nUnfortunatly our government has eliminated our liberties.  All that is needed now is for them to use their power to end the illusion they still exist.
476998
No I don't. I think that would make great news fodder for them and sadly a great number of media types thrive on televised drama, but I think civil war is a remote possibility.
487423
We had a second war for independence?
631857
no. and i hope not. \n\nits not a pretty sight having wars. and its not just the headlines every country is affected.lets cross our fingers itll not happen.\n\n"WARS doesn't decide who is RIGHT, ONLY whose LEFT."
626719
No because the South was fighting for something we would now identify as individual nation states. If the South had won the war the country would have been divided and each and every southern state would have declared its Independence from everyone else.  The war was mostly about keeping the country together and was bolstered by the cause of freeing the slaves in the south.  Between the two the North had two very noble and just causes for victory over the South.
695646
always that fear of civil war again. but as for disagreements, every country has them. can't make everybody happy. always the discontents. but this country has too much to offer, for it to break up. too many checks and balances.
508195
yes, GOD BLESS AMERICA! for we are that great & important that we can cause civil unrest in nations we're not even at war with!\nwe do this because we can, we are THE BEST NATION ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH! there for, we can make trouble for everyone else, because we can, because our great constitution gives us the right to express ourselves as we please!
997019
Another war for independance.\n\n\n Dont' think it couldn't happen - the ELECTED officials in southern cali are plotting as we speak how to BREAK THE LAW FURTHER from anything up to and including ARMED REVOLT if Congress doesn't give them everything they want hands down.
133223
Slavery had little to do with the Civil War. The prime issue was balance of power between Federal and State. Slavery happened to be the issue that fell along this divide. Could also throw in north-south economic disparacy.
292706
nah, don't think that will happen. America will always have different nationalities, religions, or whatever.