More and more the idea is in the air that the United States is on the road to another civil war. Is that true? To gauge the likelihood, it seems worthwhile to consider a historical parallel. Such things are always inadequate, but often useful and illustrative.
The current situation, as I perceive it, is that the two sides in our nation broadly break down in this way: on one side is a semi-organized force of radicals who are more or less united by a shared ideology, varying considerably in intensity and specifics, but essentially consistent with one another (if not necessarily itself). This includes most of the wealthiest and most influential people in society: the lawyers, politicians, businessmen, media, and intellectuals. They largely already control the levers of power in the form of money, politics, and media, as well as leveraging urban mobs against their opponents.
On the other is a disorganized collection of groups and individuals who all oppose the first group, though for different reasons and to different degrees. Some essentially agree with their ideology, but think they go too far or misapply it. Others dislike the economic or social implications of the ideology, and still others radically reject it on principle. But all are more or less united by an attachment to an established state of affairs, to which they are used to pledging their allegiance and which they think of as constituting the nature and identity of their society. This side is the majority population wise, but exercises much less control over the levers of power, save for a few comparatively small media outlets and a handful of politicians and other noteworthy figures. However, they firmly believe that the legitimate governing authority is ultimately on their side.
Which is to say, our situation doesn’t parallel our second civil war, but rather our first: what is usually called the American Revolution.
We tend to forget that the Revolution was a civil war. Indeed, in some ways it was more of a civil war than our second one. In the second it was mostly state against state: Virginia against Pennsylvania, New York against South Carolina. In the first it was much more a case of Virginians against Virginians, Massachusites against Massachusites. In South Carolina alone, for instance, there were over one-hundred battles in which both sides were entirely comprised of natives of that colony.
It’s at this point that it may dawn on you that this is not a comforting parallel for the Conservative side. Even more so given that one of the main differences is that the Conservatives of yesteryear could at least theoretically count on the world’s strongest army and navy to back them up, while in the present case the part the regular Army would play is much more uncertain (I think it would really depend on who is in office). But that’s a topic for another time.
And before going any further I should make it clear that, although my own sympathies, looking back, are more with the Loyalists, that isn’t why I’m likening them to modern conservatives. This isn’t a ‘good guy / bad guy’ essay. The point is to ask what we can learn by comparing the two cases, especially about what it would take to bring about a third civil war.
Though there was a good deal of civic violence between 1765 (the passage of the Stamp Act) and 1774, very few people of the time would have imagined that it would lead to full-on revolution and civil war. Remember, these people had known no other government than the Crown; there was no other source of unity among the colonies. Despite the anger many of them felt toward the British government, there was no serious psychological alternative to that government.
That changed in 1774 with the creation of the Continental Congress. Ostensibly organized as a collective bargaining body for negotiating with the home country, the Congress, as is the wont of such bodies, quickly used this mandate to begin voting itself extra powers, including passing its own laws and creating its own courts (called ‘committees of safety’) to enforce them, demanding citizens make pledges of loyalty to itself, forming its own armies, and so on.
At it was at this point that civil war became a possible, perhaps even inevitable outcome.
Now apply this to the present day. Let us say that Donald Trump loses again in November (fairly or otherwise). Let us say that he once again cries foul, and that his political allies join in with him. Say they form an independent ‘Free Election Committee’ to investigate and prosecute the alleged fraud, and then this Committee begins claiming greater rights to information access, or holding its own courts of inquiry, and enforcing their findings. Say certain states begin cooperating more with the Committee than with the Federal Government.
Or take the other side. Say the gauche Gracchus wins, but a significant number of Democrats refuse to acknowledge him as the legitimate president. Say they form a coalition in Congress, or among the more radical members of the DNC with aim of ‘saving our democracy’ from Orange Julius Caesar. Using the considerably hegemonic power of the left, they begin enforcing their own laws and measures to undermine the Republican government.
It would be under such circumstances that civil war would become a live possibility. The moment either side tries to set up an alternative government – or something that can function as an alternative government – for whatever reason, the danger will become real.
Now, absent this there can still be plenty of violence, and maybe even would-be insurrections. But it won’t lead to full-on military conflict between competing armies. For that, both sides need a governing body.
Personally, for what it’s worth, I think the second scenario is by far the more likely, since the Left simply holds greater power in this country than the Right. They have greater sway over media, finance, politics, and academia within the most populous and important regions of the country. Moreover, the Right is more wedded to the Constitution and the American form of government, meaning that the idea of creating an alternative to that would have a much harder sell in their minds than for the Left.
Regardless of who is more likely to start one, however, the point is that a civil war does not happen until there is an alternate government in place. It won’t call itself an alternate government, and it won’t justify itself as such, but it will have, or will claim to itself the powers of one.
Once that happens, a third civil war will be on the horizon.