I think it is now less about black, white, Hispanic, Asian or whatever than it is about all against all and “We Will Rule Them.”

Removing the ideas that former enemies can be friends, and that one can respect an honest foe, are both part of that.

a) The peace between the states was contingent on the constitution, and the Democrats fucked up and lsot to a man with 40% of vote. They thought they had a small d democrat case for ignoring that, but did not have a small r republican case under the wording of the Constitution. A non-negotiated exit resulted in a default state of war, and they had nothing but wishful thinking when it came to establishing peace after an exit. If the Democrats had instead taken the L, and waited things out, they probably could have neutered Lincoln in congress, and peacefully retained some of their desires.

b) The prog totalitarians are the southern Democrats. Pelosi was a key figure in this mess, and was the daughter of the Mayor of Baltimore, Maryland. She very likely would have grown up admiring various Democrat politicians of Virginia. ‘The parties switched places’ was always a politically expedient crock of shit, that ignored matter of fifty states with state parties, and the key personalities within them. Politicians who are unethical murderous liars like communist totalitarianism because of license, and also liked explicitly white supremacist terrorism because of that same license. There are just too many politicians in State Democrat parties who were absolutely fine with the Segregationists, and are now absolutely fine with the Communists.

c) Southern politicians thieving is a much more proximate cause of southern poverty than Reconstruction. The same way that Johnson’s Great Society is a more proximate cause of black poverty than some arsons carried out forty years prior to Johnson. I still believe that those arsons were bad, which is why I have a problem with the communists carrying out similar as part of getting Biden into office.

d) The backers of the Democrats are probably mainly fraud and foreign communists. There are too many coincidences, and too little obvious pushback. It is quite likely, looking back to the nineties from now, that Presidental elections have been fraud for a while. If you look at post Reconstruction, there were obviously a lot of Confederate veterans salty over what were arguably their own fuck ups, and they are plausible Democrat voters. But, the fraud and terrorism to suppress all Republican votes raises election integrity questions. There are reasonable questions about whether the Democrats ever cleaned up their behavior, which make the possibility that no Democrat in the 20th century ever fairly won the Presidency. Forex, JFK’s margin of victory could be only Southern states where Nixon could have had EVs stolen from him by fraud or by terrorist suppression of black and scalawag voters.

e) The Kennedy Johnson matter is pretty suspicious, and perhaps when the Democrats set up part of their current scheme for frauding Republicans out, and maybe also fully went over to the communists.

f) Year zero revisionist history is actually a very common strategy by regimes. Massage the historical record, and try to make people prefer the present,a nd afraid of alternatives. The fundamental practical problem is that destroying information always costs, and that bringing in officials who take that shortcut once will be constantly taking that shortcut, and hence certain to screw up everything. Modern efforts are maybe even stupider, because US academic culture has diverged from the mainstream culture.

g) ‘we was robbed’ and ‘totally in the right and standing up for freedom’ were maybe a certain amount of revisionist history by the Southern Democrat Politicians. If Lincoln was simply just that evil, and a mastermind plotter, one can avoid the issue of whether the entire grand strategy of the CSA was a colossal fuck up by idiots, who stole their authority, and who would have had their choices reversed if they did not get people committed with an attack on a Federal installation.

h) Next civil war, if it at all happens soon, will probably not be ‘tensions’ or what you describe, which sounds like a communist theory of revolution. Current regime is collapsing, because it counted on communist revolution showing up, and has nothing in mind for what to do next but maintaining the regime. The deliberate acts of destruction that it has carried out undermine and weaken the regime as well. As it collapses in slow motion, more and more people understand that key regime figures are monsters who perhaps should be put to death. There are basically two scenarios. 1. Regime collapse has little energy, and there is little violence, folks are tried, sentenced and put to death without being effective in fighting back. 2. Regime figures manage to escalate to a more significant level of violence on the way out. The problem with the plausibility of the second scenario is that they have been desperately trying to escalate the level of violence for at least fifteen years, and Americans have mostly been quietly choosing to do nothing just yet. Key things is i) change will happen where regime is weak, not where it is ‘strong’ and ‘oppressive’, different timing/opportunity. (Change to resist has been ongoing from the beginning, because left are crazies who overestimate formal official power.) ii) change could easily not be a war with combat.