----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August 2018)
"How do you spell ICE in German? GESTAPO."
First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller (c. 1946)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil War of 1861 (which may well now come to be known as The First Cvil War) was of course fought over the Twin Curses of the North American Colonies/The United States of America: racism and black slavery (see the "curse" summary, above). The history of both and their malign influence on the history of the colonies/nation have been very well documented in The 1619 Project. Of course the drive of the 2nd-Term-Trump-and-the-Trumpists to reintroduce racism (and, of course, xenophobia) as a prime driving force in US politics, has been their prime motivation in their drive to drive 1619 out of every library/school-college curriculum and mainstream discussion of (how dare you[?]) that baseline discussion/debate. Of course, the first Civil War which was fought, in its beginning, not over slavery itself. It was fought, rather, over the free (what an odd choice of term of the slavery-folks) expansion of the institution into the territories west of the Mississippi River. Eventually, following the issuance of The Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, it did come to be fought over the institution of slavery itself.
There are two important facts here which must be taken into account in understanding the First Civil War. First was that, at the beginning at least, the prime motivation for Secession was not the maintenance of the institution of slavery in the states in which it then existed (which, at that time was not being threatened), but rather its free expansion into the Western Territories. This was because for Virginia, at least, the prime source of profit for the slave holders was not the product of the labor of their slaves, but rather from the labors of their female ones. That is, Virginia had become a prime ground for the production (shall we say) of baby-slaves and their sale into the hands of slaveholders in other states and those Territories in which slavery was permitted. Indeed, at the beginning of his Presidency, Lincoln made it clear that, since the institution was firmly embedded in the Constitution, he had no designs on it. Nevertheless, on December 24, 1860, South Carolina did secede from the Union (by a process nowhere to be found in the Constitution, of course), and by the time Lincoln was inaugurated on March 4, 1861, seven states had seceded, with four more to follow soon thereafter.
It is customary to say, and write, that the Civil War began on April 12, 1861, when in response to a US government attempt to resupply the Fort, the Confederate States of America government established over time in February-March, 1861 opened fire on the Fort and the supply vessels and their escort, and succeeded in reducing the Fort and driving the re-supply convoy away. Indeed, that is when the armed conflict began. But another way to look at the start-date is to consider the December 24, 1861, event, when South Carolina undertook an action nowhere provided for in the Constitution --- secession.
And so, what can be easily seen in the United States at this time as a/the Second Civil War, to be fought between the Constitutionalist forces led by Democrats in the Congress and several states, and what can be called the Authoritarian Forces. The latter aim to functionally consolidate all Federal power in the Executive Branch. They are led of course by President Trump, Vice-President Vance, House Speaker Johnson, and the Leaders-of-Project-2025 in turn led by the Office and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. (By the way, his name is pronounced vote, not Vought, as in the name of the famous aircraft from World War II, the gull-wing Chance-Vought F4U, carrier-based fighter. As a small boy who, among many other events/campaigns of the War, followed the news of the then-famous Task Force 57 across the Pacific. The F4U was one of their major fighters. I knew it well.)
Trump, with the support of the narrowly Republican Congress and the not-narrowly Republican Supreme Court (although without the support of most of the lower courts around the nation), as is well-known has been steadily moving in the direction of destroying or rendering non-functioning many of the offices and programs of the Federal government. But, on paper at least, a Constitutionalist mask has up-to-this-time been to a greater-or lesser extent maintained (or rather one the to-be-authoritarian forces have up-to-now been trying to maintain). But on September 30, 2025, the mask was dropped. As was almost immediately very well-known, all around the world (because the speech in which he advanced the proposal was broadcast around the world), in the speech Trump proposed having units of the US military invade certain US cities, which would be, of course, ones with Democratic-elected governments, chosen by Trump, to use for --- he didn't quite make certain.
Such a move would, of course, be entirely Unconstitutional (see Article II), and it would force a range of military leaders either to violate their oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution or resign their commissions forthwith. (Of course, Trump took a similar oath, twice, but that is neither here nor there.) Depending upon what would happen following the issuance of such an order from Trump, either the U.S. Military would not be available for Trump to use in taking over a series of US cities and Trump would have to resort other forces which might by that time be available to him, or in certain locations, what might become the Second Civil War could break out.
My argument here is that just as one might view the beginning of the First Civil War as being the date on which South Carolina seceded --- for it was that event on that date that led inexorably the armed conflict that followed it --- so might one see the Trump "Invade-the-[certain]-Cities speech (before an absolutely stunned gathering of the highest US military leadership, all of whom took the oath referred to above, and who have administered it on countless occasions), as the beginning of the Second one --- if indeed it falls to us (in Lincolnesque words, if I may) to engage in one --- rather than the specific date on which armed hostilities would begin.
(Article changed on Oct 01, 2025 at 9:46 PM EDT)
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
