In The Superior Court Of Sumter County: Fill & Download for Free

The south had only about one advantage, and that was interior lines. Of those who suggest that they just wanted to be left alone, I would ask why then, did they start a war? In 1859 and 1860, John Floyd of Virginia, the Secretary of War, shipped 115,000 muskets and rifled muskets to southern armories, ready to be picked up by “state troops” in the event of secession. (See, for example, the Official Records, Series 3, volume I, page 15.) On the evening of January 8, 1861, so-called state troops attempted to take Forts Barrancas and McRee, near Pensacola. They were driven off when Lt. Slemmer ordered his men to fire over their heads. On the morning of January 9, 1861, cadets from the South Carolina military academy fired on Star of the West, an unarmed merchant ship attempting to deliver reinforcements and supplies to Fort Sumter. (Of die-hard proponents of the lost cause myth who say the attack was justified precisely because they were attempting to deliver reinforcements and supplies, I ask when was any American President obliged to secure the permission of a state government to reinforce and re-supply a United States military installation? For those who say that Buchanan wax provoking a war, I point out that the actions of Floyd, the seizure of weapons from armories in the south and the failed attack on the forts near Pensacola looks a lot more like provocation to me.) On January 10, 1861, the so-called state troops at Pensacola seized the Navy Yard there. At that point, Lt. Slemmer ordered his men to spike the guns at Fort Barrancas, and then laid a powder train to the magazine at Fort McRee, blowing up the approximately 20,000 pounds of powder stored there. Lt. Slemmer and his men then pulled out to Fort Pickens, where they held out for more than three months until relieved. Left alone my achin’ backside, they started that war, they lost the war, and they have been lying about it and whining about it ever since.Southern strategy was idiotic. They opted for an area defense, meaning that they would resist “invasion” at every point. As Friedrich II (Frederick the Great) put it: “He who defends everything defends nothing.” That is about all that needs to be said on that point.Southern operational doctrine, however, was even more idiotic. Once “invaded” by the United States Army, the Confederate commanders would attack their opponents relentlessly. Military historians too numerous to mention here have justifiably condemned this doctrine. For one example, see Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage, Grady McWhiney and Perry Jamieson, University of Alabama Press, 1980. Here is an opening summary statement:“In the first twenty-seven months of combat 175,000 Southern soldiers died. This number was more than the entire Confederate military force in the summer of 1861, and it far exceeded the strength of any army that Lee ever commanded. More than 80,000 Southerners fell in just five battles. At Gettysburg three out of every ten Confederates present were hit; one brigade lost 65 percent of its men and 70 percent of its field officers in a single charge. A North Carolina regiment started the action with some 800 men; only 216 survived unhurt. Another unit lost two-thirds of its men as well as its commander in a brief assault.”That pretty well canceled any alleged geographical advantage they possessed. Confederate forces twice invaded Kentucky, and twice invaded Maryland, carrying on into Pennsylvania on the second occasion. They were defeated every time. That was from the boys who just wanted to be left alone.Without a doubt, Thomas Jackson was one of the finest operational commanders in American history—but then, so was George Meade. Joe Johnston was the best high-ranking commander the south had. I believe, though, that he understood from the beginning that they could not win, and certainly not by constantly attacking the Federal armies. Lee was a complex figure, and I will address him in a moment. I am not greatly impressed with James Longstreet, but even he knew they could not constantly attack the Federal armies and hope to survive. In independent command in late 1863, his performance was miserable, and he lost many of his men in futile attacks on Knoxville, Tennessee (a pro-Union stronghold) and in the nightmare retreat over the mountains in winter—as well as thousands of men lost to desertion.Which brings us to what extent southerners were dedicated to the “cause” and felt that they were defending their homes. The western counties of Virginia seceded from the state when the state seceded from the Union, and thousands of their men served in the United States Army. The eastern counties of Tennessee were also pro-Union, and more than 40,000 of them served in the United States Army. Well over 100,000 southerners served in the United States Army. Especially in the hill country and the mountains, there were few slaves and few slave-owners. Those men had little interest in putting their lives on the line for a slave-owning elite. Desertion rates were much higher in the Confederate armies, and in North Carolina, which proportionally provided more men than any other southern state, the desertion rate was 23%. (See Histories of the several regiments and battalions from North Carolina, in the great war 1861-’65, Written by members of the respective commands, in five volumes, Walter Clark, 1901—usually referred to in bibliographic entries as “NC Regiments”—for the lost cause propaganda version. There are many, many sources for the high desertion rate.) There were similar sentiments in the hill country and mountains of eastern Kentucky, which, of course, did not secede. The south was not some patriotic monolith, as the lost cause myth implies.George Henry Thomas, George Gordon Meade, Fitz John Porter (the victim of a politically motivated court martial), Phil Sheridan, most of Grant’s division commanders and many, many other Federal officers were demonstrably superior to the Confederate officer corps. As for Lee, his performance was dismal, with the exception of his campaigning. He was the finest natural campaigner of his era. Other than that, he was a disaster on horseback. His performance in western Virgina was a fiasco—he completely failed to enforce his authority and was ignored by his subordinate commanders, who spent most of their time bickering and refusing to cooperate with one another. His first great command was in the campaign known as the Seven Days. Jackson was to bring his Army of the Valley to Richmond to cooperate in an attack to destroy the corps of Fitz John Porter (yeah—fat chance). Lee provided no map and no guide. Jackson was to conform to the brigade of General Branch of Alvin Powell Hill’s division, but couldn’t find him. The attack was not to begin until Jackson joined the army, but Hill launched an attack on Mechanicsville before Jackson joined, and Lee took no steps to either restrain him or censure him. It was not until the third day that Lee sent a guide to Jackson, who was insubordinate and almost immediately began to argue with Jackson about where he was to go. The final battle, Malvern Hill. was an incredibly idiotic affair. Daniel Harvey Hill commented: “It was not war, it was murder.” (D. H. Hill did not last long in Lee’s army.) Lee’s staff work was not bad, it was non-existent. At Gettysburg, Longstreet’s corps was to attack on the second day, but Lee provided no maps and no guides, so Hood and McLaws had to wait while Longstreet’s staff found an approach march in defilade. On the first day, he had told Ewell to take the hill in front of him, “if practicable,” but not to bring on a general engagement. It had been a general engagement for hours, and effectively, Ewell was paralyzed by contradictory and discretionary orders.No one could out-march an enemy the way that Lee could—Grant commonly referred to him as “the Old Fox”—but he was no kind of tactical commander, and with the loss of Jackson, his army had lost their strong right arm. Lee once told a British military observer that he took his army where he wanted it to be, and then he left the battle to his lieutenants, and that he felt that he had “done the whole of my duty.” That’s just an inexcusable attitude for an army commander. Saint Robert Lee is the most over-rated and over-hyped general officer in American history.The south had few advantages, and they squandered what they had with their foolish and unrealistic belief in their own military superiority.

This is of course a fascinating question, one the merits thoughtful response. Perhaps the most important thing to understand is that the North and South were fighting for different albeit related purposes: The North fought to maintain the integrity of union while the South seceded to keep the institution of slavery. Southern apologists argue the secession was to protect states rights but that’s true only indirectly. All Southern articles of secession emphasized that secession was all about the maintenance of slavery.After Lincoln’s election, he told secessionists : "The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors." Of course the secessionists said they didn't believe him but ultimately they ran out of patience waiting for him to break his word. The Sumpter attack was a consequence of Southern impatience. This leads us to question yet another favorite Southern apologist argument: The Union was the aggressor force. In fact, the South began the war with attacks on most Federal armories and military institutions in their region.Lincoln honestly wished to avoid war, which is why he did not respond to the various articles of secession. Lincoln believed that simple non-action would cause more rational-thinking Southerners to understand that secession really gained them nothing beyond placing their interests at considerable risk. Lincoln also sought ways to engage peaceful secession, if it turned out that that's what the majority of people desired. In his inaugural address he floated the idea of a Constitutional amendment for the benefit of those who had grown "weary of the existing government". He also made an offer to a delegation from Virginia that he would evacuate Fort Sumter if Virginia permanently disbanded its secession convention. Lincoln did everything humanly possible to avoid war. The problem for Lincoln? The impetus toward actual war began almost immediately after secession and it’s well worth noting that physical war had begun in Kansas and Missouri in 1854 (Bleeding Kansas, Bleeding Missouri).Rather than reinvent an answer permit me to borrow American History Professor William Murphy’s 18 December 2015 response to a nearly identical question. Any changes or additions by me, if any, are italicized“Hostilities in the Civil War were begun by the Confederacy, when Confederate forces fired on Fort Sumter, a U.S. army installation housing U.S. army troops, and forced the commander of Fort Sumter, Major Anderson, to surrender the fort in order to save the lives of his men, who were U.S. army soldiers.“From the point of view of the Confederacy, South Carolina was now part of a different country than the United States, and the U.S. army forces occupying Fort Sumter were elements of a foreign army now stationed on Confederate soil. They demanded the fort be surrendered to their control, and when Lincoln announced intentions to resupply and reinforce the garrison there, the Confederates attacked before those reinforcements could arrive.“From the point of view of the United States government, secession was an illegal act beyond the power of the states, and therefore South Carolina was still part of the United States, and the soldiers stationed at Fort Sumter were doing what they had always done; defending Charleston harbor against possible foreign attack. This was the purpose of Sumter and similar harbor forts throughout the nation. Since South Carolina was, in this view, still part of the United States, the armed attack on what was a U.S. army base in Charleston harbor was the beginning of an armed insurrection against the lawful authority of the United States government. Lincoln would have been under enormous political pressure to respond to this event, if he was going to maintain the idea, which was held by a majority of Congress and the Northern population, that secession was illegal. So Lincoln's response was to call for the formation of a volunteer army of 70,000 men (in those days, the U.S. maintained only a token active duty army, mostly stationed at forts like Sumter or on frontier outposts, so any major military campaign of any kind, in or out of the United States, would require raising an army almost from scratch.) As others have pointed out, four slaveowning states that had not yet seceded when the original 7 states did so between December of 1860 and February of 1861, did so after Lincoln called for the raising of this army. All four of those states had been *considering* secession, but pro-Union forces in each were strong enough to block a successful vote to secede up until it became clear that there would be war against those states that had already seceded.“So what if Lincoln had chosen not to respond to the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter? The United States of America would not exist, at least in its present form.“The longer the Confederate states were permitted to operate as though they were their own country, the more likely it would be that both the population of the rest of the Union, and foreign governments, would begin to see the Confederacy as a legitimate government. Had foreign powers like Britain and France recognized the Confederacy as an independent nation (something which never happened as things played out) it would have been much more difficult for the United States to wage a successful war against them. This would have made it increasingly likely that secession would have succeeded. Once successful, it would have established a precedent that other states could have followed in the future. Lincoln himself was fearful that if secession was permitted, there would eventually be three separate countries where once there had been one; the heavily agricultural states of the West (what today we would call the Midwest) might eventually have fallen out with the more commercial, industrial Northeastern states over some issue or other, and seceded to form their own country. (Whether this would have been the actual fault line or not is an open question, but it is very likely that secession, once accepted, would eventually lead to more secession.)“The Confederate States of America would have maintained slavery, which (contrary to myth) had been steadily expanding throughout the first half of the 19th century. According to the 1820 U.S. census, there were 1,538,022 slaves in the United States in 1820. In 1830, the number of slaves was 2,009,043. In 1840 there were 2,487,355 slaves. In 1850 the number was 3,204,313 slaves. In 1860, just prior to the secession crisis, there were 3,953,761 slaves. You can find all of this data here, although you do have to look for it: Census of Population and Housing The number of slaves, and the rate of increase, was steadily climbing in the four decades leading up to the Civil War. So the Confederacy would have maintained slavery, but would initially have only consisted of 7 states. Pressure on the remaining slaveowning states would have been enormous, however, to join the Confederacy over time. Slaveholding states would have become a considerable minority in the United States, with only 7 states still in the Union with legalized slavery, and in 3 of those (Maryland, Delaware and Missouri), slavery was not nearly as widespread as it was deeper in the South. For most of the first half of the 19th century, the Southern states had sought to maintain an equal number of slave and free states in the Union (this had been one of the factors that led to the Missouri Crisis between 1819 and 1821, and also what contributed to the resolution of that crisis in the Missouri Compromise.) That strategy would have collapsed with the departure of 7 of the slaveholding states in 1861. It is likely that as pressure to abolish slavery grew within the Union, at least some of those remaining slaveholding states would secede and join the Confederacy as well, or else those states would themselves fragment over the question of secession, as Virginia eventually did (the modern state of West Virginia is merely the western counties of the original state of Virginia, which refused to go along with the rest of the state and secede in 1861.) Since there was clearly no cost associated with secession, it is likely that at least three of the four states that seceded after Lincoln called for the raising of an army following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, would also eventually secede on their own, as they'd be faced with a choice between remaining in a Union where the pressure to abolish slavery would grow, or joining the Confederacy where slavery was legal and even praised (in the words of the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, in March 1861, slavery was the foundation upon which the Confederacy was built: “Corner Stone” Speech ) The "border states," Missouri, Delaware, Kentucky and Maryland, all of which remained in the Union during the Civil War (partly because of very aggressive efforts by Lincoln to block efforts at secession; partly because there were fewer slave owners in these states to form a strong pro-secession constituency) would either have been pressured to abolish slavery, or would have themselves eventually joined the Confederacy. So the possibility exists that the Confederacy would have been larger than the 11 states which eventually comprised it, and it would likely still exist today.There would probably eventually have been a war between the Union and Confederacy over control of the western territories belonging to the United States, as the Confederacy would almost certainly have an interest in claiming some of the territory to the west of Texas. Moving forward in time, there would be at least two distinct nations between Canada and Mexico, and possibly more (like I said, further breakdown of the Union would be possible.) Other nations might have managed to exploit this, turning these nations against each other. The Union states would probably have continued to see their population swell as a result of immigration (the flood of immigration entering the U.S. throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries largely avoided the Southern states.) But neither the United States nor the Confederate States would be as large, wealthy or powerful as the United States lone became in the decades after the Civil War.”In as much as questions about the Cornerstone Speech are unlikely to surface I would like to add a suffix about it: Alexander Stevens, Vice President of the Confederacy, made Southern views on the institution of slavery and the natural condition of black Africans very clear. We don’t hear Southern leaders today talk much about Stevens’ speech or the Confederate Articles of Succession because frankly, they are not just an embarrassment but a stain on American history. Anyone attempting to understand racial conditions in the US today must become aware of the historical underlying attitudes causing them; Stevens’ views help provide answers. Stevens said,“[T]he new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."“Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."The North won the war but it ultimately lost the battle for racial equality. Southern whites in the Ante-Bellum South obviously had a large financial interest in their slaves but they truly believed Africans were inferior and they believed they had moral authority to enslave them. The 13th Amendment might have set Southern blacks free in a legal sense but the economically dominant whites refused to embrace this concept in their hearts and minds. Once the Union figured enough time had passed they prematurely ended Reconstruction and looked to developing the West. With the aide of a racist Supreme Court, the Civil Rights laws passed by Congress during the Reconstruction Period were eviscerated, leading to the period known as Jim Crow. Jim Crow survived largely intact until 1964 and in some places, during the late 1950s, the US military was used to enforce integration. The attitude of Stevens survived him by a century. Some 50 years after the Civil Rights marches of the 1960s, we again see a racist majority in the Supreme Court whittling away at the 1964–65 Civil and Voting Rights acts (they defend their views by hiding behind the concept of constitutional originality. The argument for government approved voter identification is merely a lame resurgence of Jim Crow and Alexander Stevens as such efforts address a non-existent problem. These laws are designed to insure the US never again has a black president. That these efforts have widespread appeal among whites where such laws exist suggests that the US has a long way to go until racial equality in the heart and mind is actually achieved.

I have done more thinking about this issue, so here is an additional answer….I speak from outside. I have before. Since Canada is so geographically close to the USA, and English-speaking Canada is so heavily exposed to the American media, we see a lot of that divide. The deep divide causes issues for Canada. Currently, that divide is causing "acting out" behaviour internationally. This forces the Canadian federal and provincial governments, and Canadian business, to divert time, to what is really an internal dispute within the USA.When Is The News, Pointless Nonsense?It takes individuals to sense divides. There may be obvious economic and other divisions within a country, but if individuals do not perceive them, there may not be much in the way of political implications.Then, there can be the converse. Individuals can perceive divides that do not actually exist. Looking at it from outside, the USA has a surfeit of media, almost all of them commercial, almost all of them trying to get the attention of individual Americans, so they can sell them stuff. You can get an individual's attention by exaggerating threats and stroking their feelings of belonging, by overstating group identities. It would help if Americans didn't just believe there is "fake news", but also that there is useless news, and news that is just generated to get attention to some advertisements.Cynicism can be great for a society. I think it would possible for both conservative and progressive Americans to join a cynicism movement, if someone, or some people ,would organize it. If anything, there is too much earnestness and sincerity in the United States. Individual Americans may feel sincere concern about various issues. However, should they? Should they really need to be asking themselves, are there any really sincere politicians or media figures? Are they sincere in saying something is an issue? Should Americans of all political opinions consider whether too many of their politicians and media figures are acting like a bunch of carnival barkers, or, alternatively, circus clowns?I'm In It For MeIt sometimes is not commendable to just look out for number one, but sometimes you really need to, or maybe, most of the time. If you are looking after your loved ones, while you are looking out for yourself, you probably should."Tribal politics" is a sales pitch. If your life is really about you, the you, then there is no tribe you should belong to. (Except for religious reasons.) Say, for example, you see yourself as a progressive. You are an IT worker, urbanized, maybe a resident of suburban Minneapolis-Saint Paul, San Jose, Seattle, but even possibly suburban Atlanta, or South Beach in Miami (If your career is doing very well.) You are watching Bernie Sanders, or Nancy Pelosi, or Joe Biden, or a young, attractive, visible minority, candidate for the House of Representatives. If you are looking at someone you like, or want to identify with, it is pretty easy to get wound up. But, if you did a checklist, how is what you are hearing going to help you? If you see yourself as a nice, kind, person, this can be painful. Will regularizing the immigration status of undocumented immigrants actually be to your personal good? Would it actually hurt your life if, you have kids, the local schools are underperforming badly, and your state government grades the schools, admits the problem, and gives you a voucher to send your kids somewhere better? (In other words, it is nice to support public schools and unionized school teachers, but what if the ones at your local public school, can't, or won't do their jobs?) Will the continuation of equity and affirmative action programming actually be good, for you? What if, as a result, your kid can't get a place in college? If you have a stock portfolio, is it anyone's business to demand you make ethical and environmentally friendly investments only, or should you be making your own priorities?The same for someone who sees themselves as a conservative. You are a farmer in the South and you need field labour to get your crop in. Is that going to happen without foreign labour? Do you have time for people who talk about the evils of Mexican migration, or do you really mind it that much, if they are getting your avocadoes in from your field? What if the federal government consults with the your state Department of Agriculture, concludes no American will do that stoop work, gives out seasonal work permits to agricultural workers, they do their job, and you tell them, "Come back next year". Do you much care if someone who lives in the Upper East side of Manhattan cannot get a handgun permit? Is it really going to make you mad if the federal government does some trade deal with some foreign countries, they accept US agricultural standards, you get to export stuff there without it rotting on the dock while waiting for inspection, but then, the foreigners open a car plant in your county, your kid gets their first job, and you get to buy a Mercedes-made truck for cheap?What Does Ideology, Or Politics, Mean to An Individual Person?I happened to deal with the definition of "Ideology" in my Answer yesterday;The Cambridge Dictionary provides this definition of "ideology" at:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideologyThis definition is their property:" a set of beliefs or principles, especially one on which a political system, party, or organization is based"If one takes this definition as correct, then an individual is not the keeper of an ideology. Were I an individual American, I would ask, what political system, party, or organization in the USA is based on an identifiable ideology, how much can they really implement it, and do I want to support it, fully or at all?The Cambridge Dictionary gives a few different definitions of politics, at:https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/politics" the activities of the government, members of law-making organizations, or people who try to influence the way a country is governed"" the job of holding a position of power in the government"" the study of the ways in which a country is governed"" someone's opinions about how a country should be governed"" the relationships within a group or organization that allow particular people to have power over others"Only one of these five definitions relates to an average "someone". American "Politics" go far beyond the desires of any one American.Simply as an opinion, it would help American unity a lot, if individual Americans of all viewpoints installed a psychological "firewall", between their own existence, and the world of "ideologies" and "politics". The USA is not a collectivist society. The objective of American life is meant to be "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". That means, an individual's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, not the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of a collectivity. American ideologies and American politics are meant to be a byproduct of that search, not the objective or perfection of it.Being Honest About American Mass LifeI speak from having travelled and worked in the USA. I have family there. Being an alien Canadian, I can offer a personal contrast.Like any individual human being, I have needs, preferences and desires. Mine aren't all that special, unless you define being Jewish, divorced, single, and getting old, as totally weird. (Being bisexual gives you a sort of relationship flexibility, so to speak.)Canada is geographically huge, but in terms of population, it is small, and that small population is scattered. The result is, that there are maybe six or seven cities in the country, at the most, where I would be in screaming for help range of a Jewish old folks home. Not that much choice, eh?But then, there is the USA, with ten times the population. What if I had sixty or seventy cities where I would be a short ambulance ride from a kosher maximum care ward? What is left of my head would be spinning, trying to make a choice!And, so much the more for the young adults. In Canada, most job opportunities for well-educated young people are concentrated in a handful of cities. If you already live in one, you might be just as well to stay where you are.I worked in Seattle. The pearl of the Pacific Northwest is a pretty big town. And, Americans come there from all over, as they do to various, far from where they used to be, places in the USA. A not uncommon Seattleite is someone from way far away, who came there to make a living, and who doesn't know a soul there. No one cares about the real you and your regional heritage.Whether you want it or not, you have become an economic unit in search of a life, and some kind of identity. That can be really, really lonely and very hard. But then, there is some star of the social media, offering you a pre-packaged you product, tribal identity, membership in a lifestyle stance and viewpoint, some online friends to get reinforced by, the whole works. Play your cards right and you might get to come out to a demonstration, and hit the bars after, with some actual people.I believe this may have as much or more to do with American divides, as different American ideologies and politics. There are a lot of Americans looking for political-based love in all the wrong places. It would help the USA a great deal, if they faced it, and transferred their passions to online dating sites and church socials.A Budgetary Bottom Line, One For Each, Individual American, And Another One, For AmericaPeople have budgets. The United States of America has a budget.I don't think it is crass to say it. If you don't have enough to eat, then everything else in life is extremely unimportant.I believe it would help if every adult, individual American, who isn't already in kosher maximum care, had a budgetary spreadsheet, with line item entries. That is, how much am I spending, and how much I am bringing in, including taxes, deductions and delivery charges. Then the next question is why, what is making it that way? Not for a tribe, not for some group you want to identify with, but for you, yourself, alone.If your bottom line is nice and positive, the next question is, how can I keep things the way they are? If your bottom line is ugly, the next question is, who, or what, can assist me in getting out of this mess?No, I don't think this is a mean, self-centered approach to life. Once you have an adequate cash flow, your self-interest can get enlightened. You can donate money to charity, to your favourite social media firebrand, to your favourite social justice movement, to your favourite pastor, your choice. You can think about your opinions about how the USA should be governed, without that governing resulting in your own personal bankruptcy.And, while you are doing that, a patriotic American could do the USA well by demanding to see the national balance sheet. Francophone Canadians have a term which translates as, "dreaming in technocolour." Politicians, anywhere, like to market you dreams. It is nice to talk about making America great again, or making the USA a social justice paradise, but how many explosive drones, overseas bases, aircraft carriers and advanced avionics can the USA afford, and where should the USA deploy them? How many tariffs can the USA impose, and how many trade wars can it subsidize, before American manufacturers have to close? How many grants can the USA give out, how much tuition-free college education, how much subsidized housing, before the American tax base is tapped out? Then, think about your political opinions.Cynicism, Doubt, Skepticism, And Lead Your Own LifeI think that a lot of the deep divide could be resolved if Americans, of all political bents, made these common commitments, to say about politics, and to politicians and media influencers:-We start by not believing anything that any politician or media personality says.-If you want us to believe it, tell us just why we should, and how the USA is going to pay for it, and, more specifically, who, exactly, in the USA?-Can you prove to me that something in the government is broke, and why you are the one to fix it?-Call me out, and I will call you out, just as much or more.-If you are giving me advice, show me how you know more than I already do?-Justify why you have a right to change anything in my life, and what I do?-That's interesting what you are telling me, but what's in it for me and mine, and just how much is that going to happen, and, just when?-How is this going to help, or obstruct me, when I make choices about my personal life?-When was the last time you walked a mile in my shoes?-Don't sell me any identities. I am a grown-up American. I'll make my own.Martin LevineYou can have a deep divide in a country's politics and ideologies the country goes on anyhow. Britain and some of the European democracies have deep social class divisions. On top of that Britain is deeply divided on foreign trade policy. Austria has an enormous gap between the extreme right and people who have no issue with multiculturalism. Italy and for that matter, even my lovable Canada, have very large, and sometimes disputatious, regional differences.These divides don't necessarily matter very much as long as the structure of the political system isn't under threat. As far as anyone knows, the United States military isn't organizing a right-wing coup d'etat. The Constitution-based political system has survived slavery, lawlessness in the post-war South, the disenfranchisement of women, gross types of racial discrimination, presidential assassinations, robust corruption, Joseph McCarthy, governments that lie with enthusiasm, covert involvement in overseas wars, Richard Nixon, presidents who were plain dumb and incompetent, and so on.Donald Trump's Emotions Versus Republican Self-PresentationSome American concerns about “division” have to do with Donald Trump's emotional style, and maybe not so much substantive politics. We have an old guy who got to be President, who enjoys using tactics from the commercial reality industry. It appears that he is pursuing a late in life, last search, for the good favour of young attractive women. ( Donald, I hear ya'! ) He has a bizarre style of communicating.However, what if the President was a much more traditional, elite Republican? Say he has never tweeted once in his entire life, has a happy marriage and got an education at an Ivy League college. Maybe he has a distinguished military service record. He is a regular church goer.So, this not so emotion provoking President has a steady group of White House advisers who he doesn't feel the urge to fire. Say he reads briefing notes and proposals from them, and then delegates analysis out to the appropriate federal government departments, and tells the Cabinet Secretaries to get on with their work, and gives them deadlines to get back to him when they are done. Say this patrician communicates with the American public by means of speeches, town halls and having his representatives give detailed, fact-based presentations of things at White House news conferences.So, in a series of these rather more traditional modes of communications the Proper Bostonian President enunciates the policy priorities of the Republican Party of the United States of America:-After consultations with the Department of Homeland Security and, in particular the Border Patrol, it has been established that there is a very serious issue of undocumented entries into the United States. The volume of undocumented arrivals is such that there is a substantial risk to the labour market and that, given that the identity of the border crossers is not known, potentially a serious risk to national security. Consequently, he has instructed his officials, on a prioritized basis, to devise a greatly enhanced system of physical and electronic barriers on the border. Further, because regularizing undocumented immigration creates a “pull factor” for more undocumented migrants, he cannot agree to it.-After discussion with various economists, in and out of government, he has concluded that some of America's trade and tariff agreements have caused very substantial job loss for working class Americans. He has concluded that reindustrialization is vitally important to America's economic future. Consequently the United States will, on a good faith basis, insist on renegotiating certain trade agreements, raising tariffs and non-tariff barriers and, with regret, may cancel some trade agreements if a more satisfactory result cannot be obtained.-Evidently the situation on the Korean peninsula is a threat to world peace. The USA has made it clear to Kim Jong-un that it has no intention of trying to produce regime change or of mustering sufficient resources to attack North Korea. They have also advised Kim Jong-un that, denuclearization will result in full recognition of his regime, the security of his investments overseas, trade negotiations, and a reduction of United States forces in the Korean Peninsula.-After carefully examining the available intelligence, his advisors have concluded that, regrettably, Iran is not prepared to comply with its non-nuclear agreement. Also, there is plentiful evidence that Iran is conducting a campaign of destabilization in the Middle East. Consequently the United States will withdraw from the agreement and will engage in an active campaign to disrupt these initiatives by Iran. Further the United States will attempt to negotiate a defence agreement with countries in the Middle East that are also concerned by the threat from Iran.So, no histrionics, no grandiosity and it is pretty much what Donald Trump has already said. Without the emotionality these policies would be recognizable Republican ones and not culture war material.Donald Trump has not suggested he will do the following and it doesn't seem he will organize a plot to do it either:-Send a task force to attack North Korea.-Attempt to overthrow Congress and the Supreme Court by means of a military coup attempt.-Cancel social security.-Not even cancel medicare, although he resents Obamacare.-Refuse to vacate the White House if he loses the next presidential election.Who Really Calls the Shots in Divided America?Not your average American. The USA has extremely wealthy and powerful business and banking elites. They do a very large amount of all the significant American talking.And this elite doesn't seem all that divided within itself. The general consensus is, what's good for business is good for America. They are able to make huge amounts of campaign contributions, not just to the Presidential race but to Congressional candidate and even candidates for state legislatures and local mayors. They are very good at what they do.And, no, I am not decrying America. Canada has a very prosperous and confident business elite. Ottawa has highly-competent lobbyists, if you can pay them, and a very active, elite, cocktail party circuit. The Canadian elites aren't divided and they do call a lot of the shots in Canada.Preaching Division from Mom and Dad's BasementThe economy of the United States has not been kind to young men who don't have professional education. And, for these guys, there is no apparent hope on the horizon.The USA has always had guys like this, but the wrenching the American economy has taken in the last few years, probably means that there are currently a lot of them.If you look at movies and TV shows from the 1950's (e.g. the Original Twilight Zone) these young guys were consigned to black and white boarding houses and fleabag hotels. The expectation was that they would push broom, work as short order cooks, go into the military, try boxing for a living and engage in petty crime, and that was pretty much it.But now, these young men don't have to put up with being defined by the Twilight Zone. It doesn't cost much to have a used laptop computer and basic Internet in Mom and Dad's basement.And, from Mom and Dad's safe, secure basement, a young guy can cry out their infuriated critique of American life, rage against political correctness that must have pushed them out of the jobs they rightly deserve, express their fury at undocumented immigrants, who now steal even the push the broom jobs, and engage in some collective narcissism. Yes, my life is in the delete bin, I have limited or next to no personal prospects, but I am a American, dammit, so respect and defer to me!Say if they had black and white Internet on cathode ray TV in the 1950's. These very same guys would probably be rebutting the last Twilight Zone episode with outrage. The appearance of division wouldn't be that much different from now. On top of that the 1950's had the Red Scare, which was extremely divisive and made Americans fear and distrust each other.Histrionic Division Versus Real DivisionDivisions stir the emotions. They get people to watch your newscast and read your blog and then send donations.At the risk of being a socio-lefty-lib Canadian, but acknowledging the superiority of something American, the USA has the highest media production standards in the world. Americans know very well how to create a media product, make it and the people in it look beautiful, package it and sell the production into both American domestic and foreign markets.Venting feels so good. It feels even better when a beautiful person is doing it for you. It's the emotions that are closing the sale, not some sort of fact-based, rational presentation about some matter in the public sphere. America gets stirred up.Division is Very Satisfying When There is Little To No Really Serious ThreatThe Union won the Civil War and that was the last of the cataclysmic American divisions. The South is still a collective personality in the American division world, but, as far as anyone knows, the Old Confederacy isn't planning another run on Fort Sumter. An American can identify with the State of Alabama just as much as they want to, but they and Alabama will keep marching on.I believe that, one of the reasons that America seems so divided, is that Americans with extreme views can spew them out and nothing really bad will happen. So, exercise your freedom of speech, and cry out from Mom and Dad's basement.The USA has always had deep divisions. As long as Americans know it will hold together anyhow, there isn't that much of a need to mitigate them.Division Reduction Anyhow?Look at how it is when the Boston patrician President expresses his program, instead of the Donald. He has talked to his advisors, received some at least apparent facts, and explained what he proposes to do, without shouting out a tirade of insults, lies and bullying.If a President can lose any priority on emotionality, so can the average American. Liberals and Conservatives both know that the elites have power that they don't, so, their views may not effect much anyhow. Lose the Internet venting. Consign your emotional needs to your relationships, and to the really excellent entertainment that the USA produces. Accept that a undivided America never has happened and you can't make it happen either. Then, you have grounds for a civilized discussion.Martin Levine