Friday, June 09, 2023

Are We Approaching that Bridge too Far? Will we Have a Second Civil War?

A second Civil War. That phrase has been thrown around for some time and gets louder as the country become more and more divided under the Biden Administration. 


So, what would be the bridge too far that can trigger a second Civil War?


But before we answer that question and its possibility, we need to go back to 1954 and the Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS decision, particularly in the South where Jim Crow prevailed. 


This from


“The school board of Little Rock, Arkansas, voted to desegregate their high schools starting in 1957, which led to a crisis that catapulted the state’s governor into a showdown with the president of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower. “


“By 1957, Arkansas had already integrated several state universities and smaller school districts. But when nine black students decided to attend the all-white Central High School in Little Rock, which would desegregate a large urban district, threats of violence and protests ensued.”


“Days before the school year started, the governor of Arkansas Orval Faubus, a segregationist, announced on September 2, 1957, that he would order the state’s National Guard to surround Central to prevent the black students from entering, under the guise of protecting them from mob violence. In response, Federal Judge Ronald Davies issued a ruling the very next day, mandating that integrated classes would proceed as the court-ordered.”


“But on September 4, when the black students, historically known as the Little Rock Nine, faced a vicious throng outside Central, they were denied entry by armed troops in the Arkansas National Guard.”


“The intense stand-off continued over several weeks as the National Guard continued to surround the school in defiance of Judge Davies’s ruling. To discuss a solution, Governor Faubus visited President Eisenhower at his retreat in Newport, Rhode Island. Eisenhower and Faubus agreed that the Arkansas National Guard would remain at the school to maintain order, so the black students could attend.”


“When the governor returned to Arkansas, however, he removed the National Guard troops from Central and left security to the local police. As the Little Rock Nine made another attempt to enter on September 23, they had to use a side entrance because a belligerent mob of 1,000 had formed outside. When a riot erupted, the police had to evacuate the black students for their safety. The mayor of Little Rock, Woodrow Mann, called on the president to intervene.”

“On September 23, President Eisenhower issued Executive Order 10730, which put the Arkansas National Guard under federal authority, and sent 1,000 U.S. Army troops from the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, to maintain order as Central High School desegregated.


OK. Let’s review. A U.S. State under the authority of its rightfully elected political administration refused to follow a mandate set down by the Federal Government. In response the Federal Government sent in Federal Troops to enforce the mandate.


Hold that thought while we consider our own American Civil War. Like the Little Rock incident, a rightfully elected State government - several of them – refused the mandates of the Federal Government and in defense of States Rights, seceded from the Union forcing the country into Civil War.


So, what’s the difference between these to examples? Eisenhower using the 101st to enforce the SCOTUS decision was based on the Constitution backed up by SCOTUS. The States Rights argument did not apply.


The second example, the American Civil War and the South’s States Rights did apply, and the Confederate States sought to enforce it by use of arms.


Now lets fast forward to today. Individual militia groups, no matter how large will not win a Second American Civil War. They may be right in their reason for revolt – infringement of Constitutional Rights, etc – but they are missing the political sanctions of a government. And will be quickly crushed. If there is to be a Second Civil War, it will have to be sanctioned by a legitimately and rightfully elected government or governments that, under States Rights, refuse to implement the un-Constitutional mandates of the Federal Government. And in doing so, makes the Federal Government forcibly enforce those mandates. 


What form would these Federal un-Constitutional mandates take the form of? What ones would be a bridge too far for the Red States?


From The Heritage Foundation.


White House: DOJ to Work ‘Hand in Hand’ With LGBTQ Groups Against Threats of ‘Domestic Extremists,’ ‘Hate Groups’


The administration’s new action to “protect LGBTQI+ communities from attacks on their rights and safety” specifically cites Republican-sponsored legislation that bans biological males from women’s sports, protects children from irreversible sex-change procedures, and bans discussions of sexual and ideological topics in the classroom.


Read ‘Republican-sponsored legislation’. They mean not only by Congress but those States that have implement, or soon to be implement, laws the fly in the face of the Biden DOJ who labels the opposition to LGBTQI+ movement as domestic terrorists and using hate speech.


Will the Federal Government go after those States with weaponized branches of the government like the DOJ, IRS and CIA to force them into compliance? And what will Red States and even conservative local governments who refuse this latest attempt to reign in their beliefs and protection of their children do if push comes to shove? Will the Red States and local Red governments resist?


Could this be a bridge too far?



No comments: