[Pete Dovgan]

I don't think these people really understand the first Civil War. Commenting upon a new civil war, without understanding the last one, is the clear problem with this article. The South was not aggressive as portrayed by this author, and had no plans to destabilize or invade the Union. Fort Sumter was ‘Confederate land now illegally occupied by a hostile force that they asked to leave’. The Confederacy's plan was one of local defense and self governance. Lincoln antagonized the south to war, because he wanted to rejoin the nation. Longstreet's comment that “we should have freed the slaves and then fired on Ft. Sumter” demonstrates that the South's main goal was not slavery, but self determination.

I agree we are at an ideological division here in the United States. Trump doesn't represent a ‘dying’ group of individuals, but a often silent political majority. The evidence is all around the media, and they ignore the reality that America is actually conservative. Further, the howls from the left for gun ‘control’ are being seen as a prelude from socialists to then use the typical pattern of ‘regulate’ then ‘confiscate’ then ‘genocide’ people whom do not agree with them. Left wing nuts, (Democratic Socialists, Communist Socialist) have used this pattern to seize and commit mass murder over the last century (Hitler, Stalin, Mao). Which is why I frequently say “Guns don't kill people, Socialists with Guns kill people.”

I don't want a Civil War, 6% of the US population died in the last one with primitive weapons. The inability to force socialism, progressivism, and ultimately an elite socialist state, will lead to further left wing nut frustration and violence. They are stacking failures, usually funded or supported by George Soros, and the ‘liberals/socialists/left wing nuts’ are now considering violence. This is a ‘trial balloon’ for left wing nuts to accept that violence will be needed to strong arm the ‘violent and racist right’.

We are entering dark times, brought on not by the election of Donald Trump, but by a previous POTUS who felt no obligation to rule of law or the Constitution. Washington DC has become power and money drunk, and the three letter acronyms have become corrupt and dangerous. This is where the real conflict lies, not on demographics, but on a belief that ‘elite’ forces can impose their will upon a free people.

[PaulZe]

Longstreet’s comment that “we should have freed the slaves and then fired on Ft. Sumter” demonstrates that the South’s main goal was not slavery, but self determination.

You are using a movie quote from the movie Gettysburg to justify your position??? Something Longstreet never said.

[2ndDivisionVet]

If they had freed the slaves before firing on Fort Sumter, Britain would have almost certainly joined their side, changing the whole equation.

[PaulZe]

The South certainly was aggressive in defending the institution of slavery in the lead up to war. Bleeding Kansas...is a prime example. The whole basis of the confederacy and secession was the institution of slavery. No Slavery No civil war.....period.

[BroJoeK]

Pete Dovgan: "The South was not aggressive as portrayed by this author, and had no plans to destabilize or invade the Union."

Are you kidding?
The Confederacy was all about consuming & incorporating Union states & territories.
That's what Fort Sumter gave them: 4 Union states which had refused to secede switched sides after Fort Sumter.
Five more slave-states still did not secede, so Confederates sent military aid to pro-Confederates fighting in those Union states.
Confederates also laid claim to at least three Union territories and launched military operations into another half dozen Union states & territories.

And just so nobody could miss their point, Confederates formally declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861.

So the Confederacy was a big deal, representing an existential threat to the United States, and refusing to stop fighting on any terms better than Unconditional Surrender.