My first Everyman post in a while is now up. It’s a foray into contemporary politics, looking for historical parallels. Specifically, I look at the likelihood of America dissolving into another civil war by comparing it to one of our previous ones:

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.

Read the rest here.