On December 4, 1860, The New York Times published an article saying in part, “There is no mistaking the fact that there is a concerted plan on foot among the enemies of the Republican Party, to bring it and the President elect into the disgraceful attitude of disowning the principles and policy to which they stood pledged before the country prior to the election. To accomplish this object, the most unpatriotic means are resorted to.”

The ”means resorted to” were the vicious campaign against Lincoln and his presidency that eventually caused such division that it brought about the sundering of the Union: Before Lincoln was even sworn into office, seven states decided to secede from the Union and, two weeks prior to Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration as President of the United States of America, Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the President of the Confederacy.

Just over 157 years later, it seems that in the Democratic Party, nothing has changed.

In January of this year Democratic Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer said "It's hard for me to imagine" Democratic Senators supporting a Supreme Court nomination submitted by President-elect Donald Trump. Said Senator Schumer, "We are not going to make it easy for them to pick a Supreme Court Justice.”

But that intransigence is mild compared to what others in the Democratic Party and their Far-Left allies advocate.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, during his State of the State Address, pointed to the East, warning Washington that the most populous state in the union views the future as "uncertain" after the election, and that "dangers abound."

Brown said while federal law may overrule state law on immigration, California would use its enacted protective measures for illegal immigrants. "We may be called upon to defend those laws and defend them we will," said Brown. "We will defend everybody -- every man, woman and child -- who has come here for a better life and has contributed to the well-being of our state."

And California Democratic Party leaders have drafted and have begun to move legislation declaring California to be a “sanctuary state” effectively attempting to nullify laws passed by Congress, an act that President Andrew Jackson likened to an attempt to secede from the Union. (For more on how President Jackson informs President Trump see our article Why Andrew Jackson Instead Of Ronald Reagan?)

At this year’s Screen Actors Guild awards, “Stranger Things” actor David Harbour openly advocated committing criminal violence against political opponents. Harbour had also approved of an Inauguration Day assault against Richard Spencer, an outspoken Eurocentric social media star. For his explicit call to political violence at the SAG awards, Harbour received a standing ovation from the crowd.

You’re not reading that wrong said Daniel Payne, writing for thefederalist.com, a famous actor called for violence against his fellow Americans, and a bunch of other famous actors were totally for it. So were much of the media: Vanity Fair called Harbour’s speech “explosive,” MTV called it “inspiring,” Metro called it a “rousing call to arms,” People magazine called it “passionate,” Rolling Stone called it “fiery.”

Liberal anti-Trump inclinations towards violence are not unprecedented wrote Payne. Last year, for instance, an editor of Vox called for innocent peoples’ property to be destroyed in response to Trump’s campaign.

This bears repeating said Daniel Payne; liberals appear to be embracing violence as a political tool. This is, to say the least, frightening. Should we not be a little bit worried? We are not even two weeks into the presidency of Donald Trump, and already we are at this point. Where will we be after four years, or even eight? Will conservatives have to worry about violence coming from the Left, along with a media that excuses and justifies such violence?

In March of 1861 President Abraham Lincoln addressed the increasingly violent tone of his opponents in his first Inaugural Address, saying in part:

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

…Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."