[BDParrish]

We were able to fight in 1776 under legitimate authorities. The colonial governments raised troops and patriots mustered in not only under a view of moral right and patriotic duty, but obedience to legitimate law.

We fought in 1861 under legitimate authority. In the south, people felt that their state governments had the authority to raise troops to repel invasion. In the north, people felt that the president had authority to raise troops to put down what amounted to another whiskey rebellion. As Washington did, so Lincoln can do.

Whether one agrees with either of these ideas or not is irrelevant. My simple contention is that our side WILL NOT fight outside of legitimate constituted authority.

I do not see how this can happen in our current society. Sure a few hotheads here and there will maybe lynch some leftists, and sure there will be some self-defense incidents, but that is not civil war and it will not make any real difference.

I invite correction, please.

[Vermont Lt]

I dont disagree. But we need to know the “Harper’s Ferry” moment when it happens.

Those things are not always recognized when they happen.

[gogeo]

My simple contention is that our side WILL NOT fight outside of legitimate constituted authority.

I think you're comparing apples and pineapples. The so-called authorities in 1776 were considered by the "legitimate" authority, the King, to be traitors to the Crown and criminals.

During the Civil War the legitimacy of the Confederacy came from the consent of the governed.

Both were wars of independence. The next Civil War, if any, will be to maintain the lawful government against a coup, an internal insurrection, a revolt against the Rule of Law, against anarchy.

The current government is the lawful authority. We delegate authority; in a sense, we are the lawful authority.

[Is2C]

"We were able to fight in 1776 under legitimate authorities. The colonial governments raised troops and patriots mustered in not only under a view of moral right and patriotic duty, but obedience to legitimate law."

"I do not see how this can happen in our current society. Sure a few hotheads here and there will maybe lynch some leftists, and sure there will be some self-defense incidents, but that is not civil war and it will not make any real difference."

"I would not underestimate the Left on this issue. History shows they will be ruthless in their goal. They do not play by our rules nor have our morality."

Yep, true patriots will have a very moral issue with taking up arms against other Americans without some authoritative and powerful figure leading them. The left on the other hand has displayed often and rather impressively that they are true brainless useful idiot social justice warriors that will riot in the street on a moments notice when word comes down the "Organizing for America" [Obama] or the "Center for American Progress" [Soros] hotline.

I have added my name and email to their lists in an attempt to 'get on the inside' but they must seriously research your social media profile and will not add you if you're conservative bc, of all the mountains of spam I get, no matter how many times I add my email address, I've yet to receive a single email. How unusual is that.

[BroJoeK]

BDParrish: "In the north, people felt that the president had authority to raise troops to put down what amounted to another whiskey rebellion."

It wasn't just a rebellion, it was also an invasion of the Union.
See my post #104 above.