[Pelham]

Low. The Civil War was a war for independence, a war between the states. There’s no geographic separation today.

[doug from upland]

Indeed, I have no idea how it would be fought. There are no blue and gray uniforms. Who do you fight? You don’t take territory so what is the objective — kill as many people in the other party as possible? I guess we could go after people in masks and perhaps detonate a small battlefield nuclear device on Hollywood. Will there be gunfights between relatives at holiday dinners?

[Skywarner]

Actually, in a real sense, there is geographic separation: rural/semi-rural vs the de facto city-states.

[cctrout]

There was no strict dividing line between north & south during the first civil war there were border states like Kentucky, Maryland & Missouri with divided loyalties even in solid confederate states there were areas loyal to the union Knoxville & the “kingdom of Jones” in Alabama. West Virginia actually became a state by succeeding from Virginia during the civil. In NYC during the civil war the Democratic Party machine Tammany hall organized the draft riots after Gettysburg to create a diversion to save the army of northern Virginia. If you look at the electoral map of the country in the 2016 election the country is definitely divided along geographical lines. With pro communist sentiment concentrated in the coastal areas. I don’t hesitate to called the Democratic Party the American communist party which it clearly is. The war probably will not have organized armies but will be fought asymmetrically & will probably have more foreign intervention the Chicom’s seemed poised to side with pro communist side. Russia might take advantage to take Alaska.

[jonascord]

"Low. The Civil War was a war for independence, a war between the states. There’s no geographic separation today."

This will be a war to either support or discard the Constitution. Not geographical, except based on density of political choice.

I took an oath, some time back, promising to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Guess which party wants to destroy the constitution?

I consider the probability to be past 90%, unless it dawns on the Stupids that they are going up against the most heavily armed and trained civilian population in human history.

I do not believe they are that bright.

[Pecos]

The separation is city v. country rather than by state boundaries. From the article: "Royalists accused Parliamentarians of blasphemy and corruption, while Parliamentarians replied that Royalist corruption was even worse, and was magnified by the royal court’s sexual deviance and willingness to sell the country to foreigners."

Replace "Royalists" with "Current self-styled ruling class" and "Parliamentarians" with "the rest of the country" and you'll get pretty close to today's picture. We all remember Hillary selling 20% of our uranium, don't we?

I don't want a civil war and I'll not fire the first shot, but I may fire the last shot.

[central_va]

Low. The Civil War was a war for independence, a war between the states. There’s no geographic separation today.

I guess you haven't heard about #CALEXIT or the Texas Independence movement. It will be physical and geographic.

[Pining_4_TX]

The separation now is between urban centers and the rest of the country. Kick the large metro areas out and make them independent city-states. They can fashion their socialist utopias any way they want.

[ought-six]

“Low. The Civil War was a war for independence, a war between the states. There’s no geographic separation today.”

That’s why 1861-1865 was NOT a true civil war. It was a secession, and a fight between two separate nations that had once been united. Rawanda, however, was a true civil war. And that is where we are headed, I’m afraid.

[READINABLUESTATE]

“There’s no geographic separation today.”

It will be the Heartland vs the coasts.

[BroJoeK]

Pelham: "Low. The Civil War was a war for independence, a war between the states.
There’s no geographic separation today."

Everything depends on your definitions of "civil war", starting with Von Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means.”
That means, likewise, we can say politics is a continuation of war by less violent means.

So there are many different types of civil war, each as different from another as, say, the Second World War and the Cold War.
Sure both were wars and both global, but very different situations.

Like a repeat of WWII, 1860s-type US Civil War is unlikely now in the extreme.
But just a little hyperbole & metaphor are needed to say we have long been in a Cold Civil War, or Civil Cold War if you prefer.
Remember, the Cold War saw years of regional hot flare-ups -- Korea, Vietnam & others -- along with guerilla wars, insurgencies, shifting alliances & strategic competition with nuclear weapons.
And where WWII lasted maybe 5-1/2 years, the Cold War lasted, was it 45 years?

Likewise Civil Cold War has sputtered on now for decades, sometimes hotter, others calmer, with shifting alliances and strategic competition for that elusive "permanent majority".

Anyway, the fundamental situation is revealed when you consider this fact: in 2018 the "progressive" Democrat Governor of New York was reelected by carrying just seven of 67 New York counties -- even New York's territory is 90% red, but ruled over by its top 10% of blue counties.

The 2016 electoral map, by counties, red=Trump, blue=Hillary