Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Is America’s Second Civil War Coming?


By Tom Kando

More than anything else, 19th century American history is the history of the North-South face-off: The South was wedded to slavery and to States’ Rights, in Virginia’s Jeffersonian tradition. The North was increasingly repulsed by slavery, and it was more federalist, in New York’s Hamiltonian tradition.

During the first half of the 19th century, the young republic experienced crisis upon crisis. For example, the Nullification Crisis in 1832, when South Carolina claimed that States’ Rights superseded Federal law. This was already a precursor to the Civil War, thirty years later.


The issue of slavery was dealt with through a series of compromises, crafted by wise men such as Henry Clay. There was the Missouri Compromise in 1820 and Clay’s Grand Compromise of 1850.Such compromises all aimed to satisfy both sides, i.e. to extend slavery westward in some ways and in some territories, so as to satisfy the South, while prohibiting it in other ways in other territories, to satisfy the North. Thus, major conflict was averted for many decades.

Of course, there were firebrands on both sides. For example the abolitionist John Brown (whom some would call a terrorist today) and South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks, who assaulted and mutilated Charles Sumner, the abolitionist senator from Massachusetts.

Eventually, the firebrands prevailed. In 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively repealed the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850. In the new territories, slavery would henceforth be determined by the settlers’ popular vote. This pointed the country towards Civil War.
In 1856, Kansas experienced a mini-civil war of its own, clearly a preview of the catastrophe to follow five years later.

From then on, there came increasing polarization, no more compromises. Threatened by a North which was leaving the agrarian and feudal South in the dust, both industrially and demographically, the South became increasingly intransigent. In December of 1860, the South (again spearheaded by South Carolina) began to carry out its longstanding threat: Secession.

Today’s firebrand secessionists are the members of the Tea Party. They are utterly un-amenable to compromise. They plan to secede from the Federal Compact which has sustained this country for a century. They wish to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Public Health and other federal services. To them, the federal government has no legitimacy.

For the time being, they are winning. They won in California, in Minnesota, in Wisconsin, and it looks like they are going to win in Washington D.C. on August 2.

The irony is that in 1860, it was the Republican Party - today’s Party of Reaction - which was on the good side of history in the days of Abraham Lincoln. leave comment here

10 comments:

Gail said...

I agree-Well, I called my mom and reassured her that I would financially cover her bills and provide her with monies to help her if she does not get her social security check- if the government does not come up with a plan prior to Aug. 2 this will be a disaster. I never thought things could get so bad but maybe our government could be overthrown and ...I dont think that the Tea Party will take over but I am sure that with our debt no one will see our country in the same competitive way if we dont come up with the money to pay our bills.

My minor thoughts,
Gail

tom kando said...

Gail:
Here are some astounding statistics:

While whites make “only” a little less than twice what blacks make, their NET WORTH is TWENTY TIMES GREATER (as well as 19 times greater than that of Hispanics)!

This unbelievable disparity has doubled over the past decade or so. Whites used to be “only” ten times richer than blacks.

The value of homes has tanked, especially at the lower end, and African-Americans have far fewer “paper” assets.

So if we only focus on INCOME disparities, we don’t even BEGIN to see the incredible inequalities in our society.

Anonymous said...

A little too much hyperbole here Tom. The Tea Party does not wish to abolish, only constrain.

Marc Hersch said...

Tom,

How interesting! Just yesterday I wrote a piece on the Civil War circa 1860, in which I suggest that our war is still being fought today.

http://www.3sigma.com/the-divided-states-of-america-the-civil-war-goes-on/

One way of looking at our situation today is that when competing life styles and their systems of belief, that arise over time in economic and normative practice, become written in blood, that conflict does not end simply because in a zero-sum game, one way of life and its system of belief, is declared the "winner".

Although it has largely faded from our everyday awareness, the animosities written in the indelibly inky blood of 600,000-700,000--roughly 2% of all Americans--has not been erased by the passage of a mere 145 years.

I suspect that going back to the very beginning, the United States of America might have been more aptly called the Divided States of America.

This division, I am thinking, has been long standing and runs very deep in D.S. mythology, and in a very practical sense, the Civil War is an ongoing affair that in today's circumstance, is crippling our nation's ability to move forward.

Marc Hersch said...

BTW - Read my post to see how each the competing D.S. systems produce different wealth distributions.

Bottom line? People in the D.S. are not working together to optimize ONE SYSTEM! The problem is not a difference of ideas about now to best realize shared aims. There are TWO SYSTEMS with conflicting aims working at irreconcilable cross purposes.

tom said...

I read your piece, Marc. Fantastic.
Yes, uncanny that our insights are so similar, and simultaneous.
I had been mulling the idea for several months - the analogy between now (Red vs. Blue) and then (South vs. North), or the continuity of this division in US history, as you so aptly describe it. The
never-ending questioning by half the country of the legitimacy of the central government.
I assume that there are many other moderately intelligent people who see what you and I see. Some commentators on MSNBC have in fact begun to say similar things.

I have often said - half tongue-in-cheek - that it’s too bad that the South didn’t “win” the Civil War. They could have gone independent, and the rest of the US would have evolved into a civilized society not unlike Canada or Britain. Like I said, only tongue-in-cheek. I am not so dumb as not to realize that such a scenario could have led to horrific continental wars like the ones in Europe in the 20th century....

But basically, it’s all too clear: Today’s Reds are yesterday’s South, and today’s Blues are yesterday’s North. And today’s rampage by the Reds is the revenge of the South. What a disaster!

tom said...

...as to anonymous:
a quick reply, since I try to acknowledge all comments:
I hope that you are right, and that I exaggerate the problem.
Let's see what happens...

Madeleine said...

Click here to see Marc Hersch's take on 'the Art of compromise'.

Anonymous said...

As if a repeat civil war isn't ugly enough, it could devolve into a 3-way race war. Guess what. Unless you possess the technology of race change - and be willing to use it, you can't choose what side you're on. As one wacko white supremacist puts it, "your skin is your uniform". THAT is ugly.

At the rate things are going, America is like the Titanic on a nonstop mission from Liverpool to the iceberg.

Tom Kando said...

Well, hopefully it wont come to that.

Post a Comment

Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!