On April 12, 1861, Confederate guns opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor. A political crisis became armed conflict, beginning four years of civil war and leaving hundreds of thousands dead.
Read more Supporting Illegal Immigration: Is It Compassion Or Its Opposite?
Fort Sumter offers a warning relevant today: Political leaders who become convinced of the righteousness of their cause can underestimate the consequences of defying federal authority. Confederate leaders believed they could challenge Washington and control the outcome. Instead, they unleashed a catastrophic war. Today, progressive officials and activists who believe they can systematically frustrate federal immigration enforcement may be making a similar miscalculation. The comparison is not one of moral equivalence, nor is another civil war inevitable. It is a warning that repeated confrontations can escalate beyond anyone’s control.
The danger is not confined to America. In France, political movements with competing objectives are challenging the government’s ability to maintain public order and enforce its decisions. Although America’s constitutional structure differs sharply from Europe’s more centralized political systems, both confront a fundamental question: Can a government function when political factions increasingly treat its lawful decisions as optional?
Immigration has become a flashpoint on both sides of the Atlantic. It can contribute workers, businesses, and economic growth, but it also places demands on assimilation, housing, public services, and government institutions. When governments fail to address those demands, public frustration grows, and political movements exploit it. The resulting confrontations can test not merely individual policies but the government’s capacity to govern.
In America, immigration enforcement is ground zero for this conflict. Federal law sets the enforcement framework, but some state and local officials have publicly committed to thwarting the deportation of illegal aliens. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine, states generally cannot be compelled to administer federal programs, and declining to assist federal authorities is not automatically unlawful obstruction.
However, the central question is whether opposition remains within constitutional limits or crosses into affirmative, illegal interference with lawful federal enforcement. The Supremacy Clause establishes the primacy of valid federal law, but it does not require local governments to administer federal programs. The constitutional question is not whether states may oppose federal policy, but when opposition crosses the line from permissible noncooperation into unlawful interference.
Some cases go beyond noncooperation. In Milwaukee, then-judge Hannah Dugan directed an undocumented defendant and his attorney through a back door after learning that federal immigration agents were waiting to arrest him. A jury found her guilty of felony obstruction in December 2025, and in July 2026, she was sentenced to a $5,000 fine. In Utah, two former court clerks were charged with allegedly helping illegal immigrants evade ICE by leading them out of a courthouse back door. (U.S. Department of Justice: Dugan sentencing; U.S. Department of Justice: Utah court clerks)
These cases raise a question more serious than whether local officials should cooperate with ICE: Are people entrusted with public authority using their positions and institutions to frustrate the enforcement of national law?
There is an enormous difference between refusing to participate in federal enforcement and actively interfering with it. Courts can review a president’s policies, Congress can change them through legislation, and voters can reverse them at the ballot box. But lawful opposition is not an unlimited license to obstruct enforcement. No political faction has the right to decide which valid laws deserve obedience.
If every jurisdiction could decide which national policies deserve enforcement, federal authority would become conditional on local approval. When every political dispute becomes another contest over which institutions and officials will recognize the government’s decisions, the problem is no longer simply polarization. It is a government increasingly unable to translate lawful decisions into actionable policy.
Read more How Modern Activism Ignores History
France offers a cautionary example of how quickly confrontations can overwhelm public institutions. On October 17, 2026, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets amid mounting economic and social discontent. Much of the protest was peaceful, but violence erupted in several cities, accompanied by looting, arson, and attacks on symbols of the French Republic. Rioters targeted government buildings, including city halls, and vandalized commercial districts. (Le Monde, October 18, 2026)
The demonstrations’ political significance extends beyond the grievances that brought people into the streets. Students, labor unions, left-wing activists, and other protesters mobilized around different demands. Some wanted expanded government services and economic concessions; others sought fundamental changes to the political or economic order. Meanwhile, violent groups and opportunistic looters exploited the disorder for purposes that did not necessarily coincide with those of peaceful demonstrators.
Their objectives were not unified, but the resulting turmoil tested the government’s ability to maintain public order and confidence in its authority.
Chaos requires no common architect.
France illustrates how movements with different objectives can contribute to the same crisis without coordinating their actions. Peaceful protest is a legitimate means of political expression, but those who exploit demonstrations to attack public institutions create consequences that extend far beyond the original grievances. The cumulative effects can strain the government’s capacity and willingness to respond. The state cannot acquiesce to every demand, nor can it govern effectively without the will to maintain order and enforce lawful decisions.
America’s political traditions and institutions differ from Europe’s. American individualism emphasizes personal liberty, private initiative, and constitutional limits on government, while Europe’s political systems generally place greater emphasis on collective outcomes and guaranteed social benefits. The comparison is therefore imperfect. But the underlying question is the same: Can a government retain the capacity to govern when political actors increasingly treat its decisions as illegitimate whenever those decisions conflict with their objectives?
The Confederacy went far beyond today’s opponents of federal immigration policy. It seceded, seized federal property, and used armed force to establish an independent nation. The useful comparison is not equivalence but miscalculation: the belief that one can provoke a confrontation and manage its trajectory without accepting unknown consequences.
A constitutional republic must permit dissent, litigation, and political opposition. Indeed, its legitimacy depends on protecting those rights. But it must also preserve the ability to enforce lawful decisions. When ideological conflict, institutional resistance, and declining public confidence reinforce one another, a government risks losing both its operational capacity and its legitimacy.
Fort Sumter reminds us that the participants in a confrontation do not necessarily control where it ends. Today’s warning signs are not Confederate cannons, but the temptation to treat law as conditional, mistake resistance for an unlimited right, and assume each new challenge is manageable. No one has to orchestrate a national crisis for one to emerge. Each confrontation can look manageable right up until the moment it isn’t.
God Bless America.
Image created using AI.
Author, Businessman, Thinker, and Strategist. Read more about Allan, his background, and his ideas to create a better tomorrow.
Read more Nidal Hasan: An eye for an eye