Setting the Stage
As a lead up to the 1st Civil War, it was the election of Abraham Lincoln as President. In current times it was the election of Donald Trump as our 45th President. In each case the political opponents broadcast the impending danger. In the pre-War South they knew that ending Slavery meant ending their way of prosperity.
In current times, Conservatives understand that going Socialist/Communist is a prelude to Dictatorship and would destroy the engine of Capitalism that had made the USA so rich and powerful. And the real irony is; the 1st Civil War was fought for human rights; the end of Slavery. The 2nd Civil War may be fought to surrender human rights, as in Constitutional Rights, and actually give Slavery a rebirth.
The 1st Civil War
In the mid-1800’s South, Cotton was King. Driving the South’s economic engine was the plant that yielded a fiber that could be spun into a myriad of fabrics, from socks to tarps. The overseas market for Cotton poured millions of dollars into the coffers of Southern cotton farmers.
A development that predicated the War was the invention of the Cotton Gin. This device could separate seeds from the cotton fiber at far greater rates than doing so by hand.
From Reference.com we get this analogy of the Gin’s effect on Slavery:
“The use of the cotton gin allowed an almost four-fold increase in the production of cotton in the United States. The climate of the Southern states was more conducive to growing large crops of cotton. Many farmers increased the size of their fields and established large cotton plantations. Because slavery was legal in the South, they manned the plantations with slaves. Slavery increased 500 percent during this period, and plantation owners felt they could not function without slaves. By 1860, the United States produced about two-thirds of the cotton used in the world. The economy of the South depended almost exclusively on the cotton crop. In the meantime, Congress grappled with laws regarding which states just entering the Union were slave states and which were free. With the election of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency, Southerners feared their world crumbling. They knew Lincoln's anti-slavery stance, and they knew their present way of living was doomed if slavery was outlawed. The South decided to secede, and the Civil War became inevitable.”
When Abraham Lincoln was nominated to lead the newly created Republican Party, a Party with an announced opposition to slavery, it was said his intent was to end Slavery. But his stated purpose was to halt the advance of Slavery. From Answers.com; (writer not attributed)
“Southern politicians feared he would end slavery, since he was indeed associated with an anti-slavery political party. Rather than risk him attempting it, they chose to secede from the Union- all of the secession articles passed by the Confederate states explicitly state this was the reason why they were seceding.
Interestingly, Lincoln claimed that he was more interested in preserving the Union, and that he would rather keep slavery than let the Union dissolve. It wasn't until 1863 that he issued the Emancipation Proclamation (which was largely unenforceable and mainly a political ploy to keep Britain and France out of the war), and the 13th Amendment wasn't fully ratified until after his assassination.”
In Lincoln's first inaugural address he indicated he did not call for the abolition of slavery, albeit, that was done via the Emancipation Proclamation a few years later.
“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
And near the speech's end he stated that the Federal Government would not prompt armed conflict;
“In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it.”
Which the Southern States did exactly by firing on the Federal Fort Sumter. I believe Lincoln knew armed conflict was in the offing, but stated that its initiation would not be by his hand. Once he was elected President the majority of Southern States seceded from the Union, declaring themselves an independent Republic.
The animosity against Lincoln is contrasted in an article from the Atlantic:
“Sure, we revere Lincoln today, but in his lifetime the bile poured on him from every quarter makes today’s Internet vitriol seem dainty. His ancestry was routinely impugned, his lack of formal learning ridiculed, his appearance maligned, and his morality assailed. We take for granted, of course, the scornful outpouring from the Confederate states; no action Lincoln took short of capitulation would ever have quieted his Southern critics”
The argument for secession was carried across much of the Southern print media of the day. From a New Orleans paper:
New Orleans Daily Crescent 1/12/1861
To read the effusion of the Black Republican press, one would suppose that secession was only another word for treason. They assert, with vehement audacity, that the Union was intended to be perpetual-that it was never in the contemplation of the framers of the Constitution that the states which entered into the Union should have the right to withdraw. The quote from the articles of Confederation the words “perpetual Union,” omitting, however, to state that these words were left out of the Constitution subsequently formed, and that the “perpetual Union” which was spoken of in the Articles of Confederation, far from being perpetual, lasted only a very few years. If the States, under the articles of confederation, could break up a perpetual Union, why may they not do the same under the Constitution, where noting is said about the Union being perpetual?
Another issue the South championed was the right to continue the legality of the Slave trade in new territories.
From future Confederate States Secretary of State, Robert Toombs:
Those who tell you that the territorial question is an abstraction, that you can never colonize another territory without the African slavetrade, are both deaf and blind to the history of the last sixty years.
Deciding whether a new territory would be designated as Free or Slave only exacerbated the discord. By the time Fort Sumter was fired upon the fervor for an independent Confederacy was at a fever pitch.
The 2nd Civil War
Print media and word of mouth were the means of communication in the 1860’s. In current times, electronic communication has exploded the sources of information. It may be assumed that earlier era had its own form of ‘Fake News’ but this has been eclipsed a million times over by the rash of ‘Fake News’ outlets today.
Since Donald Trump announced as a Presidential Candidate and after winning election, his opponents have adopted an entire “Chicken Little, The Sky is Falling” philosophy, with warnings abounding about the dangers of a Trump administration. But, just as in the children’s story, it requires one to embrace the same unreality. Dire predictions came of War and Economic collapse, loss of Constitutional Rights, even a return to Slavery.
From a Hillary Clinton speech in 2016:
We have to decide whether we all will work together so we all can rise together.
Our country's motto is e pluribus unum: out of many, we are one.
Will we stay true to that motto?
Well, we heard Donald Trump's answer last week at his convention.
He wants to divide us - from the rest of the world, and from each other.
He's betting that the perils of today's world will blind us to its unlimited promise.
He's taken the Republican Party a long way...
from "Morning in America" to "Midnight in America."
He wants us to fear the future and fear each other.
Well, a great Democratic President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, came up with the perfect rebuke to Trump more than eighty years ago, during a much more perilous time.
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
In November of 2016, the Wall Street Journal reported a letter signed by 370 Economists warning of a Trump Presidency:
"He misinforms the electorate, degrades trust in public institutions with conspiracy theories, and promotes willful delusion over engagement with reality. If elected, he poses a unique danger to the functioning of democratic and economic institutions, and to the prosperity of the country."
"His statements reveal a deep ignorance of economics and an inability to listen to credible experts. He repeats fake and misleading economic statistics, and pushes fallacies about the [value-added tax] and trade competitiveness. He promotes magical thinking and conspiracy theories over sober assessments of feasible economic policy options."
Two journalists warned about Trump’s threat to freedom of information in early November of 2016:
“Less than a month before the U.S. presidential election, the Committee to Protect Journalists issued an unprecedented statement denouncing the then-Republican nominee. “[Donald] Trump has insulted and vilified the press and has made his opposition to the media a centerpiece of his campaign,” said the committee, a New York-based organization that promotes press freedom. “A Trump presidency would represent a threat to press freedom in the United States.”
With little more than two months before Trump takes the oath of office, the threat to the media—and the public's right to know—is reality. However, President-elect Trump may find a thicket of laws and Supreme Court precedents limit his maneuvering—slight comfort for those working to protect a free press.
In October, 2016, PBS Host, Tavis Smiley, predicted a return to Slavery if Trump was elected:
“For me, it starts with how you treat the children, the poor, the aged and infirmed, how you embrace equality as you labor for equity,” he noted.
“Equality means that everyone gets the same in America, whether they need it or not,” Smiley asserted. “Equity says we commit to ensuring that all fellow citizens have the basic resources that will give them commensurate opportunities to contribute meaningfully to our society.”
“Two: Since so many fellow citizens have yet to experience the true 'greatness' of America for the first time, for whom are we making America great again?” the host then asked.
“And three: To what specific period of American greatness are you wanting us to return? When black folk suffered segregation after slavery? When women had no right to vote or control their own bodies? When gay brothers and lesbian sisters felt ceaseless hate?” he asked.
“When we stole land from the Native Americans?” Smiley continued. “When we sent Japanese families to internment camps? When America lynched Mexicans? I just need Trump to give me some clarity on the time period he wishes to travel back to.”
After Trump’s 2016 win, the war of words only intensified.
In spite of the American Economy enjoying a huge boost, the lowest Unemployment rates in decades, record high amount of people in the workforce, rising wages and reductions in Welfare, Leftists instead try to convince us otherwise. From an article by former Labor Secretary Robert Reich came this:
So don’t be fooled. Don’t judge this economy by the stock market or economic growth, or even the level of unemployment.
Look at actual living standards of average working Americans, and you see an economy that’s getting worse, not better.
That’s right, don’t believe what is real. Don’t let the truth interfere with the Socialist narrative.
From the Atlantic came this caveat;
- The president can order American citizens killed in secret.
- The president can detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial.
- The president can order drone strikes at will in countries against which no war has been declared.
- The president can start a torture program with impunity.
- The president can conduct warrantless surveillance on tens of millions of Americans.
Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions of Americans.”
From US News comes this opinion piece;
In a thoughtful op-ed for The Washington Post earlier this year, New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen argued that Trump had "crashed the system" with his profligate lying and by espousing absurd policy proposals, such as building a wall to keep out undocumented immigrants and somehow forcing Mexico to pay for it.
"Imagine a candidate who wants to increase public confusion about where he stands on things so that voters give up on trying to stay informed and instead vote with raw emotion," Rosen wrote. "Under those conditions, does asking 'Where do you stand, sir?' serve the goals of journalism, or does it enlist the interviewer in the candidate's chaotic plan?"
From Tim Kaine, Hillary Clinton's running mate in 2016,
called for Democrats to “fight in the streets against Trump.”
One of the most stunning examples of selling Communism, is revealed by a winner to the seat of the City Council in Denver, Colorado. In the video, the young woman cites the following:
“I don’t believe our current economic system actually works”
“Capitalism by design is extractive”
“In a Capitalistic system something needs to be exploited”
“Capitalism doesn’t work and we need to move into something new”
I believe in community ownership of land, labor, resources and distribution of these resources”
“I am ready to usher it in by any means necessary”
At the end of the video comes a definition of Communism as “public ownership of land and control of production”
Her words do not frighten me. Those who voted for her do. They are the foot soldiers to be used as fodder in the next Civil War. This is meant to appeal to all of the spoiled brats in this country that can wield a vote. The idea is to sow dissatisfaction – an effort that is encountered daily across all media platforms.
Another form of “setting the stage” is people on the Left predicting what Donald Trump will do as a result of the 2020 election. One prediction was that, when defeated, he would not yield the Office of the President and would have to be removed by force.
“It’s been a worry in the back of my mind for the last couple years now,” said Rep. Brendan Boyle, a Pennsylvania Democrat. California Rep. Ted Lieu, a frequent Trump critic and early impeachment inquiry supporter, acknowledged the same concern but said he trusted law enforcement “would do the right thing” and “install the winner” of the election. Even House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has told her party to prepare for the possibility that Trump contests the 2020 results.
Another prediction is that Trump would use armed force. From a Hollywood Elitist comes this warning:
We have a racist, fascist president who’s using armed thugs in law enforcement & illegal militias to keep us cowed & hopeless & he’ll take the 2020 election by armed force & blatant, treasonous criminality & that’s us now, we’re the country with concentration camps so happy 4th
These types of predictions, such as the doom and gloom predictions approaching the 2016 elections, only stirs the pot, inciting people to take to the streets should Trump be the victor in 2020.
A study out of Stanford University in California does its part to sow this discontent. In their study they find;
“Millennials Face Greatest Hardships From Toxic Economic Conditions”. This is done to make them upset at Capitalism, in spite of young people enjoying the greatest gifts Capitalism has yielded in history. They count on those Millennials to not seek the truth because this narrative so suits their selfish desire to live and thrive off of the labors of others. As expected, those espousing Communism promise this.
The overarching narrative from the Left is that anyone non-white has. and is, being victimized by Whites. This is meant to stir up hatred for all White people by an unparalleled campaign that will incite non-whites to aggressively attack White people. Non-whites are being incensed by those with an agenda – Democrats.
Can lies and distortions prove effective in inciting violence? Yes, it is effective, and it is rampant in politics, in our schools and the media daily.
Connecting the Dots
In the 1st Civil War fiery language in reaction to Federal policies stirred the masses toward armed conflict.
Towards a 2nd Civil War, fiery language creating imaginary injustices are stirring the masses toward armed conflict.