Horowitz: The Civil War Started When Democrats Seceded From the Union in 2016

FrontPagMag ^ | 9/29/2020 | Meagan Fox

[MacNaughton]

Author's note: Conservative legend David Horowitz, author of the new bestselling book Blitz: Trump Will Smash the Left and Win, gave me an exclusive interview on Newstalk 570 WSYR in Syracuse, where he revealed his shocking theory about the current political unrest that seems more plausible by the day as revelations about a coup attempt to remove the president are revealed.

[Jonty30]

I learned on Glenn Beck that the Civil War did not start with Fort Sumter. It had been building for at least a decade prior to that. Many of the Southern states were locked down prior to this and there were small acts of violence and assassinations during this period. Fort Sumter was the final destroy before a declaration of war was made.

[UnwashedPeasant]

The Confederates did not want to overthrow the government. They wanted government by consent, which meant separation from the federal alliance.

This is very different from the 2016 attempted coup. The coup conspirators wanted the opposite of government by consent.

[Celtic Conservative]

And this year they outdid themselves when they chose a black woman for vice president who isn’t black.

CC

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[JudgemAll]

Wrong , they have a military force, called antifa-deepstate- china waiting at the gates.

[JudgemAll]

More equal than others... Hitler did it to make enslaved gemrans think they were favored over jews, Chinese do it with the Uyhghurs , and democrats keep doing it from one race to the other who is more liable to play that game.

I am starting to think the reason so many amongst asians or jews vote democrat is because of their own socialist racist elements in them getting baited for favored “thinking” treatment.

[SkyPilot]

So far, there have been no arrests, indictments, or trials against the D.C. criminals, traitors, and coup plotters (and it's not looking promising that there will be).

After Trump won in 2016, I guess they all feared they would be exposed. We can only imagine the theft, murder, bribery, extortion, blackmail, and other crimes they had committed prior that caused them to launch civil war.

"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God."

John 3:20-21

And it's not just Democrats in D.C. The civil war combatants and allies include Big Tech, most corporations (who Trump gave trillions in tax cuts), Hollywood, 95% of all media, professional sports, academia, and almost all international bodies (UN, WHO, World Bank, IMF, EU, etc.)

[SkyPilot]

The Confederates did not want to overthrow the government. They wanted government by consent, which meant separation from the federal alliance. This is very different from the 2016 attempted coup. The coup conspirators wanted the opposite of government by consent.

Extremely good and valid point.

While slavery was a horrible evil, I believe that the founding documents of our nation allowed and permitted the South to leave the Union.

The civil war victory by the north forever altered the Constitutional balance that held the behemoth Federal government in check vis a vis the states. After the war, Fedzilla was on a path towards complete dominance.

[TheConservativeBanker]

Additionally, from John Adams to Henry Clay to Abraham Lincoln the primary advocates for crony capitalism were politicians and business people in the Northern states. All were advocates of “public improvements” projects (federal subsidies which were arguably unconstitutional) funded largely by taxes collected from the Southern states. My ratio’s may be off a bit, but prior to the Civil War approximately 75% of federal taxes were collected from Southern states while approximately 75% of federal spending was in Northern states. This arrangement allowed Northern crony capitalists to profit from slavery, while permitting a plausible deniability of guilt attached to slavery.

[mikey_hates_everything]

“The Confederates did not want to overthrow the government”

The Confederates also did not want to take over the North. They wanted out. This is more than that civil war, it’s a Communist revolution and takeover attempt.

[Bratch]

Direct link to iHeart radio podcast

[polymuser]

I view the D’rats’ 2016+ political actions as a coup attempt against our President, not as secession.

I view the progressives’ & D’rats’ current social actions as sedition.

I view both actions as treason, to be punished by hanging by the neck until dead.

[smvoice]

Bkmk

[kearnyirish2]

Yes, there is no “secession” at work here when these losers are demanding money from others (regardless of where they live). The Seattle “CHOP” zone ran out of food very quickly; those propaganda photos showing their paltry “gardening” produced nothing.

[Mr Radical]

Yes, except I think they committed treason and effectively seceded when they declared Sanctury States / Sanctury Cities.

[cuz1961]

seceded when they declared Sanctury States / Sanctury Cities.//

That was/is my opinion.

[notdownwidems]

My ratio’s may be off a bit, but prior to the Civil War approximately 75% of federal taxes were collected from Southern states while approximately 75% of federal spending was in Northern states. This arrangement allowed Northern crony capitalists to profit from slavery, while permitting a plausible deniability of guilt attached to slavery.

Do you have a link or any documentation for this game-changing (if true) fact?

[Wuli]

“The Confederates did not want to overthrow the government. They wanted government by consent, which meant separation from the federal alliance.”

A difference without a practical solution, then or now.

Separation then or now equals dissolution of the union in some sense.

It also results in changes between the two (or more) parts, the part that remain(ed) part of the whole and the part that separated. It also INSURES geopolitical changes in the relationships of the two to other states in the world. That inherently adds to protective concerns for their own interests in those relationships, inherently also trying to advance relationships beneficial to themselves which may possibly be disadvantageous to the the other party. Other states would be picking and choosing which of the two parties that want best relations with, and that would also inherently include support for one side or the other. It would have brought the role of Europeans back into the affairs of the states.

No. Dissolution/separation is inherently fraught with issues that, in my view, would have eventually led to conflict between the two, conflict that in my view the north would have won anyway.

[jmacusa]

Except not any consent of the enslaved.