The anti-ICE neo-Confederates
In Chicago on Saturday, a mob of protesters surrounded ICE agents on a routine patrol, ramming their vehicle and boxing it in with 10 cars to frustrate immigration enforcement efforts.
Chicago officials allegedly ordered the city’s police to stand down and not assist the federal agents — even though one of the “protesters” was armed and shots were exchanged.
Armed resistance to US government officers executing the law, with police refusing to back them up? That was no accident.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker didn’t condemn the violent resistance, but he did condemn the feds.
Reynolds goes on to mention the light sentence received by Roske (see this), and the vile spewings of Democratic candidate for Virgina AG Jay Jones and the failure of Virginia Democrats to demand his dropping out (see this). Both things signal that it’s okay for the left to try to kill people on the right, or to threaten to do so.
As Reynolds says, there’s “a whole infrastructure of funding, messaging and legal defense” supporting a rhetoric of violence against the right and supporting actual violence against the right, and against enforcement of federal policy such as deportations. He adds “Dare we call it an insurrection? If not, what is it?”
Well, you may recall that, during Trump’s first term, the left called it The Resistance – remember? They immediately – and I mean immediately – styled themselves as WWII-style freedom fighters, conjuring up the anti-Nazi comparison by that self-serving phrase Resistance.
Victor Davis Hanson has come up with a good descriptor [emphasis mine]:
In blue cities across America — Portland, Oregon, especially — often violent protesters now seek to surround ICE facilities to stop federal officers from fulfilling their assigned and legal duties of arresting illegal aliens. …
The masked rioters assault anyone in their way. They count on exemption from punishment for committing violence against federal officers through the goodwill or indifference of kindred local and state officials who hate the Trump administration more than they respect the law. An Orwellian scenario follows in which federal officers are attacked by Antifa, which in turn counts on the non-intervention of local police. …
America fought a Civil War over Confederate states’ efforts to ignore federal law and confiscate or occupy federal property within their state jurisdictions.
As late as 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace thought he could nullify federal law by using his state guard to deny black students’ enrollment in the University of Alabama — until the Kennedy administration federalized all state troopers and sent in additional federal troops. …
So what we are witnessing in Portland—and elsewhere—is a neo-Confederate attempt to supersede federal law and, in reactionary fashion, invoke states’ and cities’ rights. …
In other words, both Antifa and the appeasing Oregon officials are our new neo-Confederate secessionists. They feel that their states are now autonomous entities that are still entitled to federal money but not obligated to follow federal laws. …
For a party that has been quick to shout “insurrection,” it is ironic that Democrats and their useful, though violent, Antifa insurrectionists are in rebellion against the federal government and its agents.
Indeed. But isn’t it an old Democrat tradition?
I’ve never understood the violent dislike of Trump and where it came from. He apparently was well liked before he ran for President. Was it just defeating Hillary? Is it the decay of the Democrat Party and its take over by the totalitarian left? They always disliked any Republican who defeated them but they are now becoming self destructive with their active support for blatant criminality. Are they just exposed due to the weakening of the hold of the MSM on the news.
I am currently reading Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, the acclaimed history of the Civil War. The war was started by the landed aristocracy in the south wanting to keep their “property” i.e. slaves. But even the ordinary people in the south, who did not own slaves, had an intense dislike of the north. The interesting part is that even well into the awful war, the soldiers on both sides had a romantic view of war. They accepted that there would be battles where tens of thousands of soldiers would be killed. What a terrible time. What can we do to avoid a civil war?
Edit. While keeping our constitutional republic.
The White House holds a roundtable discussion of Antifa with those who know and those who work the problem, live (recorded) video (1 1/2 hours): https://www.youtube.com/live/6gs09ikUdRc
I disagree that “neo-Confederate” is a good or useful descriptor of what Dems are doing.
To begin with, the historical parallel is not good, the Confederacy was motivated in its rejection of Federal supremacy by issues that aren’t in play today.
It’s not useful because anyone with enough historical background to appreciate the label would reject it as a poor one, and even if it was a good parallel Dems never care about logical consistency and are never held to account for it. People who are not much online or much concerned with politics would simply find it baffling. You might as well call the Dems neo-Ghibellines or neo-Lollards.
Niketas:
Hanson is a war historian. He’s certainly got the historical background.
“Neo” doesn’t indicate equivalence.
Often mentioned is the idea that the people funding this violence should be gone after, and the name that comes up most frequently is Soros. I would not be so sure that AWFLs like Melinda Gates, Mackenzie Scott, Laurene Powell Jobs, and Teresa Heinz Kerry are not also behind this, either personally or through foundations they control. The Clintons too: Hillary is still bitter about 2016 and she strikes me as the type who nurses a grudge and would not mind seeing the country suffer.
@neo:Hanson is a war historian. He’s certainly got the historical background.
Indeed he knows enough history to know better, and I respect him a little less for having said it. He knows enough to know why it’s a poor descriptor, but wrote it anyway because he’s doing opinion. At any rate his area of expertise is classics, not the Confederacy, and he’s no more expert on it than you or I.
“Neo” doesn’t indicate equivalence.
I will pass that on to anyone I see saying such a thing.
Nick jumps the shark, proudly, and confidently.
Good to know that Nick is the arbiter of “expertise.”
OM, beat me to it, and said much better than I could.
If the commenters formed an alliance we would be Neo Confederates.
Om, good on you, mate, for the mike-drop worthy slap-down of this blog’s Cliff Clavin.
I grew up in the South and have been aware of North-South hostility my whole life. I’m not sure how aware Northerners are of the persistent snideness about the South. The South’s gripe about the North is not, as far as I can tell, literally leftover resentment over a horrible war over 150 years ago, which is played more as a joke, but more about the modern smug snideness, together with a general stereotype of Yankees as cold, rapacious, and blind to their own considerable racism while attempting to blame all racism on the South.
“Democrats and their useful, though violent, Antifa insurrectionists are in rebellion against the federal government and its agents.” VDH
When the federal government and its agents are engaged in lawful activity, rebellion against the federal government and its agents is actual insurrection.
Difference: The South said States rights, the North said Federal law is supreme. The South counted on cotton ( British Intervention) gathered by slaves. If Britain didn’t intervene (which they didn’t) the South was doomed.
This time it’s those who make this country vs the ultra rich.
Similarity: Americans do not like violence in politics, but when plied few excel at violence better than Americans.
I trust that’s confusing enough.
People have rights, States have powers granted to them by the people. This is basic stuff, too often obscured.
When Biden et al. were performing their national level political lawfare/ warfare, there was discussion from the Right about the need and ability of the states to step up and countermand the national government’s excesses. Now we have the national level Republican/conservative efforts to deport 10M+ illegal aliens and the sanctuary states/ cities are “stepping up” or “stepping out” to hinder that, essentially a continuation of said political lawfare/. warfare.
Not so much two sides of the same coin as the coin with the bad side flipped over.
Is the Resurrection Act the Congressional blessing of the constitutional promise that the federal government will provide the people of the states a civil republican form of government, if or when the states (and cities?) fail to meet this goal and intent?
I am not sure Trump citing that Act is even really necessary from a constitutional perspective, given the state of lawlessness in so many Dem controlled cities, and some states. Seems a lot of the Antifa and related protests (especially when they turn violent) are really just modern day versions of the Whiskey Rebellion as far as federal vs. state level authorities are concerned.
And we now generally consider the state NG’s to be equivalent to the prior “near universal” militia. But with a federalization option if/when the president so requires. Aren’t the NG’s funded via the Dept. of War budget, rather than state funding?
I more or less agree with Niketas Choniates about the term “neo-Confederate.” There is a degree of similarity between what the anti-ICE states and cities are doing and what the Confederacy did, but there is also a vast difference, enough to make the term a huge overstatement. It would be justified if the states were actively withdrawing or stating an intent to withdraw from the union.
I like Hanson but I’ve often noticed in him a tendency to overstate his case.
A much more apt and precise comparison is to the Southern governors who tried to resist desegregation in the ’50s and ’60s. The federal government either sent or threatened to send troops to enforce the law. This comparison *ought* to be more effective in shaming the anti-ICE states and cities. When they see the pictures of National Guard troops escorting black children past segregationist whites they should see themselves in the white resistance, not the liberators. Of course they won’t.
Wendy K Laubach: yeah, me too. I’m in my 70s and come from a long line of southerners, including some who fought for the Confederacy. I have *never* heard *anybody* express serious resentment about losing the war. Jokes, yes, but clearly such. But a lot about the cultural hostility, which is still alive. On both sides.
Federal law is superior to state and local law. The act of declaring a city or state as a sanctuary for those who have broken federal law is an act of defiance/rebellion.
The sanctuary city movement began in the 1980s and should have been dealt with by now. However, no POTUS has had the determination to enforce immigration laws as strongly as Trump.
The sanctuary city policies were defended as being useful to local authorities in gathering evidence from Illegal aliens in criminal cases. It was claimed that the illegals were more likely to cooperate with local police if they knew they wouldn’t be turned over to ICE. That might have held some water, but it should have been challenged in court and/or Congress should have passed laws forbidding such practices.
No action has led us to a place where the Democrats blue states/cities have decided these illegal aliens are their future constituents, and they want them here. And they’re willing to resort to using street goons like Antifa to defy the federal agents who are trying to enforce federal law.
Antifa is financed by several big money sources – Soros, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford, Foundation, maybe individuals lie Melinda Gates, Heins Kerry, etc. But the money is laundered through NGOs and is hard to trace. Get rid of their money sources and half the battle is won. It will take some counterintelligence to root that out.
Then prosecution of the anti-ICE goons in federal courts will cool those hotheads down. That will allow ICE to do its work unimpeded by the goons.
Eventually, the issue of sanctuary states/cities will have to be settled in court or in Congress. States have rights, but not to aid and abet federal lawbreakers.
I agree with VDH. The Dems are openly defying federal law, just as they did in the 1850s South before the war began. Neo-Confederates works for me.
States don’t have rights. Read the Constitution. People have rights. States have powers lent to them from the people who create those states.
Hi, blog. Can I flip this around a little bit conceptually for a moment? I wonder if the people running these ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions regard the ICE’s enforcement efforts, on some sort of perhaps half-conscious basis, as analogous to the Fugitive Slave Act. Of course, one corollary of this is that in their minds, that makes them heroes of a sort, which may be an ancillary benefit for them. But even without trying to play the armchair psychologist, could this be a real explanation?
I think the ‘neo-Confederate’ gloss is a bit exaggerated. Is there, for example, an active and real coordination of efforts among the blue cities or states in question to resist the federal authority? I suppose that’s possible, but if there is, the fact that they are (a) geographically non-contiguous and (b) nonviable as independent political entities makes it rather difficult for them. Chicago isn’t going to split off as a city-state, for example, unless it takes most of northern Illinois with it – there’s not a whole lot of farmland in Cook County. (Or I suppose its population could shrink catastrophically and then it could perhaps find the wherewithal to support the remnant at subsistence level, but that would be another story entirely, I imagine.)
More likely, maybe, if one really wants to explore definitely Confederacy-type scenarios, is if Washington state, Oregon and particularly California really were to decide to secede at some point. That I would regard as existential for the Union. The strategic risk related to China and the Pacific Rim is just too great.
Here’s a question, since I’m not sufficiently familiar with the lead-up to the Civil War: could we pin down a specific instigating event that led to the formation of the Confederacy and the secession movement? I figure this has been solidly established in the historiography. If something definitely like that has already occurred in the present situation, then I would be more convinced about Hanson’s interpretation (not necessarily convinced, just more convinced).
And I guess the ultimate question on the business end: what is the point of making this ‘neo-Confederate’ comparison? If just to show how bad or wrong the Democrats are, well, great, wonderful, fantastic, but… so? What is Hanson or someone else proposing to do specifically as an outcome of this conclusion? For example, if the verdict is that the government should have arrested Jeff. Davis and whoever else before Fort Sumter happened, therefore we should be arresting Brandon Johnson, Michelle Wu, etc. now while the opportunity cost is not too great. That would be the kind of concrete output I would be looking for from these thought experiments.
“Resurrection Act”
I think we know what you meant but still …
“what is the point of making this ‘neo-Confederate’ comparison?”
It emphasizes the fact that Democrats are not only breaking federal law but encouraging others to do so. Made more hypocritical by the fact that at least since FDR (maybe Wilson) Dems have nearly always favored federal power over state power. And slyly reminding people that it was the Dems who supported the Confederacy.
Is it *exactly* like the lead-up to the Civil War? Of course not. But this fundamental is the same. I agree with J. J.
A couple people here have suggested that the Gates’ foundation may be behind the anti-ICE violence. Not unreasonably, they have mostly spent their money on left-wing causes. But it is possible this is changing, I got this link from John Kass’ website:
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5522092-bill-gates-may-have-just-set-off-the-death-of-far-left-tainted-philanthropy/
We can hope, anyway.
You must have two legitimate sides. The lead up to the Civil War was cumulative but certain.
Thanks for that link, FOAF. With the Gates Foundation funding drying up, and with the government’s investigations of the funding sources for the Antifa violence network, the radical left and its Democrat connections may face a funding drought.
Pritzker and Johnson should ask Sen.Vallandingham how that went.
No comment: https://youtu.be/m36uOUSJFjE?si=ftzX9QhO_Q_gycOf
A much more apt and precise comparison is to the Southern governors who tried to resist desegregation in the ’50s and ’60s.
==
You could say, I suppose. The thing is, for nefarious ends the local governments in Chicago, Portland, and Los Angeles (whose powers are entirely derived from state government) are attempting to prevent federal agencies from enforcing what is indisputably federal law. (And, keep in mind, Democratic administrations have sought and received court sanction preventing states from enforcing unenforced federal law). Eisenhower, Kennedy &c were making use of federal forces to enforce court decrees dictating how states and localities performed their conventional functions.
A “neo-Nazi” explicitly admires and emulates actual Nazis. He uses their symbols, shares their aims, reveres their deeds and leaders.
Unless we are playing Humpty Dumpty games with words for the purpose of a smear, a neo-Confederate is someone who explicitly admires and emulates actual Confederates. He uses their symbols, shares their aims, reveres their deeds and leaders.
Such Democrats existed, within the lifetime of people who comment here, but today’s Democrats are doing literally none of these things. They are not whistling Dixie or waving the Stars and Bars or invoking General Lee and Jefferson Davis or seeking to preserve slavery.
Defending the Democrats and the left from inaccurate associations. Who knew?
I take no position on whether “Neo-Confederates” is an apt desciptor of Antifa or not. While I’m reasonbaly well versed in US history, I’m not as confident in the fine details of significant events as others. Nor would I want to delve into researching those events at this time in order to construct an argument one way or another that’s ultimately not that significant in the grand scheme. I’ll just say whether one considers Antifa and the coalition of Democrat governers and mayors (not to mention the vast network of NGO’s and 504s that are used by malevolent plutocrats to fund them) that indirectly support them “neo-confederates” or not, it’s fairly obvious that at minimum they’re agents of chaos and division seeking to undermine Constitutionally supported Federal authority. They are barbarians at the gate. They are enemies of civilization.
Unless we are playing Humpty Dumpty games with words for the purpose of a smear, a neo-Confederate is someone who explicitly admires and emulates actual Confederates. He uses their symbols, shares their aims, reveres their deeds and leaders.
That’s the most superficial aspect. The modern Democrats are acting like Confederates in more substantial ways, in the defiance of legitimate federal power and their use of violent militias to impose their will (Antifa now the KKK in the past).
So, Niketas, what analogy would you use to describe what the Democrats are doing in the blue run cities and states?
The neo – Confederate analogy is, IMO, only referent to the fact that both the Confederate States and the blue states/cities were/are defying the authority of the federal government.
An example of another term that analogizes ideas and actions is “career criminal.” There are many different types of crimes (robbery, murder, assault, fraud, etc.), and types of criminals (Young, old, differing races, differing sexes, etc.) The common thread is that these individuals break the law many times and don’t change. When we use the term, we may not know exactly what crime’s they have committed, or what they look like but we know what they have in common.
one might call them autonomists or secessionist, another way of looking at it, is urban insurgency theory, largely expounded by the Brazilian Marighella, focos or bases of resistance, against those counter revolutionary (their words) authority,
but the result is much the same, where the people are largely cut out of the political sphere, in favor of paramilitary actors, one might call it a ‘cold civil war’ a term that william gibson popularized before tds infected him
Not going to bother about whether Democrats are acting like Confederates or acting like drugged roaches in a bottle. The following is egregious:
==
https://blazingcatfur.ca/2025/10/09/l-a-county-considers-declaring-state-of-emergency-to-fight-back-against-ice-raids/
LA officials could find themselves in federal court on criminal charges if they deliberately obstruct enforcement of federal law.
@J. J.:So, Niketas, what analogy would you use to describe what the Democrats are doing in the blue run cities and states?
I see little reason to draw an analogy at all, especially to something that happened 160 years ago for completely different reasons, involving completely different people who believe nothing in common with what today’s Democrats believe. It’s sufficient to factually describe what they are doing and how and why.
If calling them Confederates was some kind of propaganda kill shot it might still be worth doing, but it’s not. Linking them to crazy trans activists, foreign antisemite agitators, illegal immigrants, and assassins is far more effective and is indeed even truthful, and they themselves publicly embrace those people.
Not to mention that if 2024 had worked out a little differently it might well be red states needing to defy the Federal government now. You can bet they’d be called neo-Confederates for doing so, and it would also be a lie. There’s lots of relevant reasons why it’s morally right or wrong to do that and practically none of them have anything to do with the Confederacy.
I see little reason to draw an analogy at all,
==
You could have used fewer words answering his question.
I see your point, Niketas. I think it’s okay to draw analogies even if they aren’t exact replicas. You don’t, and now we get the why. You want exact duplication, not a generalization of the underlying motives.
Well, it’s good to have a debate about such things. Clears the air, and pins down exactly what we’re talking about.
Pedantic is a description of Nick’s approach to dialog and argument.
I see little reason to draw an analogy at all, especially to something that happened 160 years ago for completely different reasons, involving completely different people who believe nothing in common with what today’s Democrats believe. It’s sufficient to factually describe what they are doing and how and why.
But they are the same where it matters: rejecting legitimate federal authority and using violent militias to enforce their will.
We seem to be moving towards civil war for similar reasons we fought the last one, and in both cases it is because Democrats insist on getting their way.
FOAF on October 9, 2025 at 1:16 am:
OK, brain fart # 17,396, if my count is correct. 🙂
But Art Deco’s link has a commenter saying:
Guy7500 8 hours ago “Insurrection act is coming.”
So perhaps we will see a resurrection of an insurrection?
But reflecting on Don @ 8:09pm; “We seem to be moving towards civil war … because Democrats insist on getting their way.”
I think the prospect of a Spanish Civil War type situation was growing under the political lawfare and warfare of the Obama/Biden admin, where if such practices had continued, some citizens would eventually end up killing (a lot of) other citizens. But with Trump exercising NG and other federal level reactions, I am beginning to think that will end up calming things down on balance, although there may still end up being more deaths than we would ever want to occur.
I suppose the group of 2028 Dem presidential and congressional candidate hopefuls might just say or do something truly stupid as part of trying to gain political traction; but if the media strangle hold on opinion is also declining, even this might be mitigated by reality.
“Not going to bother about whether Democrats are acting like Confederates or acting like drugged roaches in a bottle. ”
Embrace the power of “and”, AD
As a denizen of the great PNW, let me add that it feels like nobody gives a runny spit about Portland. Now that Chicago is involved, in a somewhat lesser way vis. the furor of Antifa, the nation’s eyes are turning towards the confederation of anti-American democrats.
Here is where I add that I worked for about a decade up on Capitol Hill, Seattle. In the very place the Lefts later took over like it was Czarist Russia and 1917 again. The King of Chaz opened up his (luxery) car trunk and handed out AR carbines to what amounted to chimpanzees on meth. And here we are today.
Sorry, but I personalize everything. I’m nobody but I wish I could participate more in the politics of the present day. Anyway, I wanted to say that I once read the riot act on the street. It was a training exercise, thank God. What went through my mind was that this was the job of hurting Americans on a domestic battlefield. IDK if this is the Civil War 2 people talk about, but I do watch daily as it seems we are, at least, walking through the weirdness of the Sixties again.
Keep your powder dry, my friends.