Lincoln said in his first inaugural address that all constitutional controversies can be separated into majorities and minorities. And that either the majority or minority must acquiesce for the government to continue. He was talking about the minority who just lost the 1860 election, and were refusing to submit to that loss, by seceding.

But importantly, minorities sometimes win. There's the bill of rights. There's case law. There's popular vote in presidential elections, contrary to the Electoral College vote - as in Bush 2000 and Trump 2016, in which majorities submitted to the outcome, i.e. they did not revolt. Thus the government continued.

Also importantly, Lincoln is pointing out that even a significant minority can be extremely disruptive to civil order, that it is actually a fragile business. And Trump and his pro-autocrat supporters have laid the ground for a significant minority simply refusing to be governed in numbers exceeding law enforcement's ability to contain it. No one can predict whether that'll be attempted or actually succeed, but the Bastille-storming moment is the mere attempt at such a coup, despite being a failed coup, despite it surely failing even had the goals at the Capitol succeeded: assassination of any number of elected officials, stopping the Electoral Vote count or fabricating an alternative outcome... the people who were needed to make a coup succeed simply weren't present in positions of power to make it happen. But we can do counter factuals to analyze whether and how that could have been different, and end up with a different result.

Both of Trump's AG's in the last three months following the election told him he lost. Both told him there was no evidence of fraud in any amount that would alter the outcome of the election. Well, what if one of them said he won and that he absolutely had authority and a duty to order the military against the Congress? You'd need multiple members of the armed forces willing to go along with that. It wouldn't just be one. And it's essentially certain armed forces would split, because all of them are trained about military coups and interventions, and the deceptive trap of militaries getting involved in civilian decision making processes.

The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012 (written in 1992, imagining a coup had taken place in the U.S. in 2012 - it's been required reading in the various military colleges for at least a couple of decades)