Quite.
Modern war is an abstraction to the population now. Those who want it expect it either harmless or amusing a la the cinematic experience. Vietnam introduced the concept of war as TV entertainment, minimizing human cost to the general population.
Those living who knew war are passing. WWII was the last war with pervasive effect on the nation, at minimum via shortages and war-focused industry.
The US “Civil War” was the most bloody, yet still was tempered (*cough*) by the clarity of geographic division. The Mason-Dixon line pretty much clarified who was on which side who wasn’t.
The US Revolutionary War was similar insofar as “us” and “them” was pretty clear. The dividing line was several thousand miles wide (aka “the pond”).
My point, boosting yours: we have never seen anything akin to true civil war, a la Sarajevo, where both sides are thoroughly mixed together, neighbor v. neighbor, where _anyone_ could be an opposing combatant. In a twist, methinks this is why the fight hasn’t broken out yet: nobody knows who to “go after”, nor has an imperative to.
SOme of us patriots know who to go after.....just sayin'.
The Left, since the 1960s, has pushed this "violent revolution" rhetoric. Some times it is louder, some times it is quieter but it is always there.
The Right merely refuses to be intimated by the Left's thuggish behavior. They say "Ok then bring it" calling the Progressive Fascists bombastic bluff.
Freedom has always requires those who love it to be willing to respond with greater violence to those who want to take freedom from others.
The USA's whole history rests on that willingness of average US Citizens to violently oppose, when necessary, authoritarian forces both external or internal.
To try, as you do, to create a fraudulent moral equivalence between the two sides is nonsense. One side, and only one side, the Political Left, is the aggressor here.
Also, your understanding of both the US Revolution and the US Civil war is very superficial. Both wars had large areas where the fighting was "neighbor vrs neighbor" with no clear cut geographic divides between the combatants. For example, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and most of the South in the Revolution. East Tennessee, Kentucky and virtually the whole area west of the Mississippi south of Iowa during the Civil War.
In fact, during large parts of both the Revolution and the Civil War, a regions loyalty had more to do with who had the most soldiers in the immediate neighborhood then anything else.
Actually, you are not quite correct on the Revolutionary war. There were torries and patriots and it was hard to tell them apart. The torry was equivalent to a spy who would work against the patriots every chance they got. So there was a lot of fighting going on in which the enemy lines were not clearly defined. I will agree however if Bozo and they boys succeed in starting an armed conflict(which I think they want)it will be difficult to tell who is who. I suppose we could do something along the lines of the French revolution and wear certain colors to confirm if we are conservatives or not.