I don't really think so, at least not in the immediate future. I do see the similarities which have been around for probably a good decade or more. Even in the years immediately following the Civil War there were very bitter elections and political discord. The end of the Civil War didn't bring an end to the political animosity and the Southern Democrats were not very cooperative with facilitating reconstruction. Ironically the major advocates from the south for trying to make as seamless a transition as possible back into the Union were Robert E. Lee and James Longstreet. The Civil War did not start with the secession of the southern states and I'm assuming part of your concern is with the news from Texas of its petition to leave the union. In truth these kind of petitions happen frequently it's just that this recent one from Texas is the first time such a petition has received the requisite number of signatures which is only on the order of something like 27,000 if I remember correctly and I have no clue if there's even enough of a backing within Texas to even make it go any further than that. Basically what caused the Civil War in terms of actually getting the shooting going is a boil over of military tensions. You have the South declaring independence. You have President Lincoln challenging the legality of the South breaking away. The South, viewing itself as independent is now going to mobilize to defend what it believes to be its sovereignty. At the same time, you have assets such as Fort Sumter in the south that are still technically Federal property under the US War Department and now Lincoln has to start mobilizing the US military to protect those Federal assets. The South is going to view those assets such as Fort Sumter as either rightfully belonging to the south, or at the very least they will view the presence of those Federal assets as a threat to their own sovereignty and security. In fact the South tried to not only negotiate the withdrawal of Federal forces from those areas, but also offered to buy those facilities as part of a peaceful resolution, but for Lincoln to do so would essentially be recognizing the sovereignty of the Confederacy which was something he wasn't willing to do. So literally what you have is a military standoff with both sides mobilized on a heightened state of alert. The only thing that's needed is for someone to decide to open fire. It literally was a game of chicken between Lincoln and the Confederate government over of the legitimacy of secession. And before someone flies off the handle accusing me of rewriting history and that I'm some post Civil War racist saying it was all state's rights and all that utter nonsense (there's always some mouth breathing Philistine that always does) as if I'm not capable of listening to a composed articulate opposing argument, the whole issue of slavery was one of a number of issues (and a pretty big one at that) that created the political impasse leading to the secession of the south which then leads to yet another political impasse over the legality of secession which leads to the actual shooting. Lincoln wasn't just a politician, he was a very shrewd statesman. I mean if you take a close look at the Emancipation Proclamation, it is a work of art in terms of what it does and the legal and political basis for how it works.
Also keep in mind that America is culturally very different than it was back then. There was a much more independent spirit in America back then. Not only was industrialization taking root, but there was literally more than half a continent worth of frontier to the west that the nation was expanding into. The nation wasn't as heavily interconnected as it is today both socially and in terms of infrastructure although geographically the nation is still large enough to support regional cultural differences.
"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard
Last edited by Akula2ssn : 11-26-2012 at 02:46 AM.