Did you know that in the 1850s, members of the Democrat party were referred to regularly as fire eaters or as locofocos?
It kind of sounds like my calling them drama queens, with BDS and TDS being replaced by LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome), does it not?
Just as one of this blog's most prominent posts over the past 20 years explained how we are (now) living in The Era of the Drama Queens.
As talk over the past four or five years has warned of a second civil war, doesn't it sound like the Democrats have not changed an iota
since the 1850s and perhaps even since the party's foundation by Andrew
Jackson?
That, after all, was the thesis of Dinesh D'Souza's book and film on The Secret History of the Democratic Party (in which King Andrew the First plays a prominent role).
Moreover,
as I have written before, prior to his becoming the Republican Party's
1860 candidate, Abraham Lincoln held a speech in February 1860 (indeed, his Cooper Union speech
galvanized the Republicans to eventually choose him as their candidate)
in which he told his audience how he would address himself to them as
if they were composed of Southerners and Democrats:
… when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as
reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a
hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans].
In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an
unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be
attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an
indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be
admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be
prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to
us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and
specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or
justify.
How many democrats amd MSM outlets in this day and age are willing to be "patient … to hear [Republicans] deny or
justify"? Don't CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times deem "an
unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism or Trumpism] as the first thing to be
attended to"? "Reptiles, outlaws, pirates, murderers"… How often have Republicans been
called (domestic) terrorists in the past years? (And in the years, in the
decades, before that?).
Doesn't Lincoln's Cooper Union
speech sound like something a Donald Trump or a George Bush could
legitimately say (obviously, in different words) in the 21st century?
Locofocos. Fire eaters. Drama Queens.
As their name implies, the leftists' raison d'être
is to constantly search for melodrama, to find offense in everything,
and to lie, or at least to exaggerate, to the very limits of reason (the
first example in more recent times that comes to mind being Ed Driscoll's observation that every Republican candidate since the 1940s has been likened to none other than Adolf Hitler).
(This led to another of my posts on — present-day — leftists: The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables.)
The
hysterics of such locofocos is what leads to the Democrats' creation of
the Ku Klux Klan, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, along with opening
fire on Fort Sumter. And by the way, before you mention racism, don't
forget: the Southern slave states of the 19th century were all solidly
Democrat, just as later, the (same) Jim Crow states of the 20th century
were all solidly Democrat.
In that perspective, another lie, as we
have seen, is that, contrary to modern leftists' contention that the
two parties have switched since the Civil War era, such people as Dinesh D'Souza and Prager University's Carol Swain have demonstrated that during the so-called Big Switch,
only one single solitary Dixiecrat in fact joined the Republicans while
in the very first election after the Nixon/Ford administrations, and
their alleged winning "Southern Strategy," the South was swept by the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter.
Again,
as I have written before, we have all heard that the debate about what
caused secession and ergo the Civil War: Was It Slavery and/or States'
Rights? Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?
The victory of such a despicable being made the Democrats' locofocos go
bat-shit crazy and proceed to tear the country for the next four years
apart… That wouldn't sound like the 2016 election (or the 2020 election, or the 2024 election) now, would it?
Related: • What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It
Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something
Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House?
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder?
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech"
• The Greatest Myth in U.S. History: Yes, the Civil War Era Did Feature Champions of States' Rights, But No, They Were Not in the South (Au Contraire)
• A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past
• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress"
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions?
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth: The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence