Bringing down general Robert E. Lee statue in Virginia college town’s Emancipation Park cannot but be classified as the re-opening of hostilities that ravaged the disunited North American nation some 150 years ago.
There is a nagging suspicion that the liberal fundamentalists are now using the campaign to demolish Confederate monuments, which geared up since spring this year, to deepen the controversies in the American society, pitting various social and ethnic groups against each other.
By placing the blame evenly on both sides of the violent clashes between the rapidly resurging ”northerners” and “southerners” in Charlottesville Trump infuriated those who are engaged literally in re-shaping the mindset of the nation by re-writing its history.
The campaign to vilify and wipe any reminders of the Confederacy is ideologically motivated. “It appears we’re nearing the end of the Confederacy’s interminable after-life“, writes Tony Horwitz in the leading Trump-basher media clan outlet, The Washington Post.
Moreover, this is a case of imposed bigotry since the skirmishes between radical right and radical left are presented as a sequel to the “noble” fight during the Civil War in 1861-1865 between the advocates of slavery and institutionalized racism, meaning the Confederates, and the Abolitionists alias the Northerners. This is far from the historical truth, as any unprejudiced American scholar would say to his fellow citizens.
The fundamental causes of the Civil war are found not in the conflict between slave-owners and champions of color-blind equality for all. The fact is that the industrial moguls and bankers of the North were unhappy by the relative economic and commercial independence of the property owners of the South who were making fortunes exporting cotton, tobacco and other primary goods to Europe. It was a war for dominance among business tribes.
Besides, there was a distinct difference between the settlers from Europe. Protestants and Catholics with a certain degree of royalist feelings cultivated the lands of the South while dissident pilgrims with indignation and ire towards the country they left behind were building up the North.
The war from the start was hardly about “freeing the serfs”, and only at a later stage the white slave owners of the North allowed the enlistment of the black people into the army. Thus granting them certain civil rights. It was definitely an effective move to gain a quantitative advantage over the army of the Confederacy and make black slaves in the South their natural allies.
However, the picture does not come out in black-and-white. It is no big secret: George Washington, the first President of the United States, inherited ten slave when he was 11 years old, and by the time of his death, 317 slaves lived in his residence at Mount Vernon. Another US President, Thomas Jefferson owned hundreds of African-American slaves despite his personal rejection of such injustice. Many other top political figures of the North at that time belonged to elite slaveholders who formed the ruling class.
It adds weight to Trump’s Twitter post: “…can’t change history, but you can learn from it. Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson – who’s next, Washington, Jefferson? So foolish!”
As a matter of paradox, General Robert E. Lee whose statue was downed in Charlottesville had freed his black slaves. There were also some signs that before the Civil War broke out Confederacy was slowly evolving and would have abolished slavery anyway in a matter of several years.
Charlottesville’s clashes are most likely to stimulate the outpour of latent fear among the descendants of the original settlers, white Anglo-Saxon, both protestant and catholic, migrants from Europe. Their communities are becoming more aware of the on-going forceful erosion of their ethnical, religious and cultural traditions. Instead, traditional values are substituted through liberal media brainwashing campaigns by a set of politically correct dogmas rejecting any strong hints of national identity.
Charlottesville’s onslaught on the delicate balance of views on historical schisms between the still divergent North and South could mark a crossroad for the relentless attempts to hold together the conglomerate of ethnic, social, religious and special interest groups that make up modern America.
“Racism is evil – and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans,” Trump said. “Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry strike at the very core of America.”
This statement was largely addressed to the audience of Trump’s entrenched adversaries. Yet, there is no reason to doubt that Trump believes in what he says. Nevertheless, it did go unnoticed by the “deep state” establishment. For the clear reason that it does not fit into the scenario of portraying Trump as “racist” and plain-clothed white supremacist. Despite being placed on false and fabricated ground, such allegations rally Trump’s opponents and instigate their even more aggressive posturing and behavior.
The ultimate goal seems to be to destabilize the US political system along many lines and eventually build up a case to launch the impeachment process.
Moreover, there is a geopolitical dimension to the internal feuds within the US ruling elites and the society in general. The world should be genuinely apprehensive of the rise of what some called “paranoid citizens” eager to channel frustrations on those who do not share their beliefs and prejudices.
It does not only re-ignite the Civil War, which has been fanned by Soros and other liberal fundamentalists since they lost in the 2016 elections, but it enhances the unpredictability of the incumbent US President.
After being either implicitly or covertly labelled a sympathizer of the alt-right and similar groups – who are alarmed by the marginalization of the white middle class and working America, and for good reason – Trump is now more constrained in his choices of priorities in domestic and foreign policy.
Besieged Trump might seek a counter play by making adventurous moves overseas that would suppress, at least temporarily, internal dissent and divisions within his own party and the society overall. A response by force to an invented threat from the outside might become a universal unifier.
Any seemingly relevant – in the twisted public perception – external enemy like the erratic and capricious North Korean (NK) enfant terrible or the unruly Che Guevara-style leftists in Venezuela, allegedly endangering the lives or the wellbeing of fellow Americans (just like Saddam Hussein was condemned for conspiring against America in 2003), could well serve this malicious purpose.
It might prove, as it often proved in history, to be a sufficient deterrent for the continuous strife in the US ruling elites. But it would only postpone the vendetta launched against Trump by the unelected cosmopolitan financial oligarchy that runs America without caring too much about the country.
If in the coming months we witness the making of a sequel to Charlottesville’s so far localized Civil War, it would be a sufficient motive to be afraid. To be very afraid. A Trump’s war either against North Korea or Venezuela or any other state declared ”rogue” would misbalance the already unhinged international affairs and send the world spinning out of control completely.