It's far from over. In fact, it was never over. Here's a historical clarification to give an insight and some background information into the political 'shadow-war' occuring today in Washington DC and within states nationwide. And that is just the fallout of the ongoing American Civil War. American Historian’s James McPherson & James Hogue, both prominent intellectuals whose area of expertise are in the Era of the Civil War and Reconstruction, gave an eye-opening account on the forecast of the Democratic Party’s intentions for America in 1857 and beyond:
“Slavery lies at the root of all shame, poverty, ignorance, tyranny, and imbecility…” With a direct emphasis on the rogue political tactics used to obligate the whole mass of society, “the lords of the lash” (speaking of Democratic politicians and business elites) who “are not only absolute masters of blacks [but] of all non-slaveholding whites, whose freedom is merely nominal, and whose unparallelled literacy and degradation is purposely and fiendishly perpetuated.”
R. H. Purdom would give a common man's warning early: "Decided course for the speedy suppression of the intolerable abuses” taken on by white workers was absolutely necessary for the “permanent welfare of the institution of slavery itself.” Mr. Purdom was a master mechanic who stood up to address a meeting in Jackson, Mississippi. He gave a stark warning to the elite’s controlling the southern economy. By this point, even the poor working white class were ready to turn coat on their own institutions—and their own people.
In September of 1865, a prominent leading Democratic politician (just recently pardoned by the federal government after losing the Civil War) publicly scoffed at any idea of the Democratic party remaining loyal or remaining to have any type of good behavior towards the newly re-establish United States government. Even Wade Hampton, one of the South’s wealthiest elite farmers (and a rebel hero) would mention immediately after the Civil War that it “is our duty” (talking of the post-war Confederates who were legally pardoned of treason) to support the President of the United States, however their loyalty to the new government would only stay intact if “he manifests a disposition to restore all our rights as a sovereign State.”
Even though rebellious military action ceased to be weeks after the loss, the Democratic party of the post-Civil War period only declared a momentary political ceasefire. And although formally, they did not willingly capitulate to the federal government (the Union) at the moment of millitary surrender. During this moment between April 9th and November 6th in 1865, a nearly invisible shadow war marked the 'beginning of the end' for the future of political and social cohesion within the United States of America.
Democrats had regained power in most Southern states by the late 1870s. Later, this period came to be referred to as "Redemption". From 1890–1908, the Democrats passed statutes and amendments to their state constitutions that effectively disenfranchised most African Americans and tens of thousands of poor whites. They did this through devices such as poll taxes to vote and literacy tests to “qualify” (among other underhanded tactics). By the late 1950s, the Democratic Party again began to embrace the Civil Rights Movement, and the old argument that Southern whites had to vote for Democrats "to protect racial segregation" grew weaker.
The Democratic party realized that regardless the outcomes of the Civil War and Reconstruction, the policy of "slavery-by-color" was over. Even segregation became an option not viable to their parties ethics, which is to oppress the poor regardless of color. So how did they do this? Modernization had brought factories, national businesses and a more diverse culture to cities such as Atlanta, Dallas, Charlotte and Houston. This attracted millions of northern migrants, including many African Americans. They gave priority to modernization and economic growth over preservation of the "old ways" of the Democratic party. With the Southern economy being agricultural, and more recently industrial -- the Southern economy (owned by the majority Democratic elites) shifted their thought process towards mass-manipulation.
In other words, over the years, they knowingly shifted their politcal and social policy of human slavery inward -- meaning slavery is now not just for people of color or of poverty, but all those people in our communities nationwide that are easily manipulated, fooled, or inherently ignorant.
Between 1865 and the late-1880's, prices were falling and people's incomes were increasing six-fold--offering American's more purchasing power. The politicians of the New South began feeling the pressures of big businesses complaints that the increased wages were rising faster than factories and companies could produce. It is because of this major economic shift that the attack on the greedy worker was to begin. There was another shift as well. A social one. Now that the freedmen (former slaves) and previously non-slaveholding whites, were able to climb the free-market ladder unhindered. For the Democratic party, it was time to shift the focus to social and economic slavery--because slavery by color would be considered rasict by todays standards--something that Democrats apparently insist they are not.
"Cut their wages to begin with. Make them work harder. To align their interests with their employers, put wage warners on piecework (part-time). Above everything, do something to stop skilled workers from setting the pace of production and spreading to co-workers their spirit of 'manly' resistance to speed-ups" (hostile resistance to forced increase in manual labor). Much like the post-Modern Institutions of Fast Food, Gas, and Retail, one laborer wrote: "You start in to be a man, but you become more and more a machine.... It's like any severe labor. It drags you down mentally and morally, just as it does physically." Of course the Iron Workers during those times had it painstakingly hard physically, but the shift today has moved to being considerably exhaustive mentally, especially in our more recent times here in the United States.
The point made here is that historically speaking, the Democratic party has a proven track record of corruption, a complete absence of ethic, and a total incompatability to the foundational principles behind the United States Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Modern attempts at enabling 'neo-slavery' is the pacification of the general public (desensitization through all entertainment) and general misinformation of current and past-events; led by the 'Democrat-friendly' liberal media moguls in Hollywierd.
Today, Repulican's are screaming at American's to "get out and live!" They want to encourage financial independance and societal success. The Democrat's are screaming at American's to "stay home and save lives!" At this point, for what? One Democratic politician was quoted recently as telling American's that they should just stay home and "get paid" with the federal government paying out a basic universal income for everybody. And in the future? Who knows, but the way things look, it could possibly by something as simple as misleading everybody into eventually doing everything from home anyways--and only home.
It is apparent through history's documentation that 'Neo-Slavery' is the Democratic party's modern end-game.
At least it seems that way.
Daniel L. Smith,
 McPherson, James M., and James K. Hogue. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Ordeal by Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction, 543. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2009.
 Beatty, Jack. "The Problems of Peace and Presidential Reconstruction, 1865." In Age of Betrayal: The Triumph of Money in America, 1865-1900, 543. New York: Vintage, 2008.
 “Mechanical Association,” Mississippian State Gazette, Dec. 29, 1858, 3.
 Perrow, Charles. "A Society of Organizations." Theory and Society 20 (1991), 791. doi:10.1007/bf00678095.
 Chris Talgo, Opinion Contributor. "Universal Basic Income and the End of the Republic." TheHill. Last modified May 12, 2020. https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/497244-universal-basic-income-and-the-end-of-the-republic.