Armed conflict and democracy...

Why Are So Many Conservative Politicians Brandishing Guns?

The part of this story I'l like to comment on is this:

I guess I had thought that at Appomattox Court House back in April of 1865 we'd settled the whole question of whether armed resistance could alter our democratic system. More broadly, I always believed that the beauty of democracy is that it is supposed to take violence out of the process of lawmaking. In a democracy, the vision that gets the most support wins, rather than the one with the most guns behind it.

Actually, the misadventures of the Civil War changed many things, including some which have produced our current (economic) problems as well.  The Civil War functionally led toward a decline in states' rights and the effectiveness of the 10th Amendment which carried over into the creation of the 17th Amendment and the use of the Federal level as a bully pulpit over the individual states.

Why is that non-democratic?

It's not, really, it's anti-republican and it's one reason why we have so much antipathy between so many people in so many states and the Federal level and a massive inability to control the Federal budget (and it's effects like taxes and buying off votes with benefit programs), because the Federal system was never intended to be more than a one (national defence) or two (national defence and interstate/international commerce) pony.

Unlike other systems, like the parliamentary system, there is no way--outside of the regular elections or impeachment--to rein in a Federal legislature or President who has "gone rogue" and is no longer acting in the best interests of the people.

Prior to the Civil War and the armed occupation of the South, the Federal government didn't get particularly involved in the day-to-day life of people and--if it had gone rogue--the influence of the States on the Senate would provide some level of "roadblock" for most actions.  

Additionally, most "solutions" to problems close to home--like establishing who can make decisions about what healthcare there was or who met the social requirements for being married--rested squarely on the community who would have to deal with the consequences of and had the most influence on.  It wasn't the effort to try to create a one-size fits all approach that puts most people--where there are differences in opinion--at odds with the Federal government and everyone else.

So, the armed insurrection of the Civil War didn't work and had major implications for us--including a much stronger Federal level and less power in the states--but I'm not sure the person who wrote the story completely understands the lesson.

Additionally, given the ongoing armed insurrections in Syria and other places as well as the recent and last century histories of other "insurrections/revolutions", I'm not sure that "inevitable failure" rule still applies.

Those examples and the idea the US could sustain--economically--another 4+ year military conflict within the confines of the US borders and still functionally remain a country is probably not realistic either.  Unlike the North and South, which were somewhat economically viable on their own at the start, whatever side the current Federal government would land in any future conflict, if the other side merely established a detente and a viable economy, the current Federal system would probably risk collapse from simple failure to service current debts and lack of confidence from the creditors remaining...

Oh, and the Civil War was "solved" by the side with the most guns, not necessarily the most support; democracy backed with guns.