Different times, different situations, different cultures, different Presidents, different everything.
First of all, it's questionable whether American troops will have more loyalty to Obama than to the Constitution and the American people, should it come to it. I think that most troops are smart enough, and aware enough to know who's who in this country, and will refuse to fire on patriots.
Second of all, Obama would not be able to draw a line, and declare certain states "in rebellion", as Lincoln did. This time, the insurgency would be dispersed throughout every state of the Union.
Obama also does not have a moral imperative on his side, as Lincoln did. What would be the higher, moral purpose behind his opposition to The People's Rebellion? It couldn't be seen as anything more than a dictatorial and despotic attempt to quell a righteous rebellion for the cause of liberty and the restoration of our constitutional republic.
Where there is no moral imperative, there is no support from the American people. He already loses on that count, alone. There are a host of other reasons that he and his Socialist cronies will be unsuccessful in their bid to overthrow our way of life through force.
Obama and the Socialists are forcing a showdown. They will get it, and they will lose. They are probably too arrogant and ignorant to understand that they are now ensuring the total demise of their agenda and their party in this country.
Regardless of right lying on the side of of “we the people”, you had better remind yourself of what death smells like. If you have never smelled it, ask someone who has. Personally, I don’t know of anyone who has been in an armed conflict that wants to see another one or would not do anything in their power to prevent one.