5 Ways Modern America Looks Like Pre-Civil War America

So, if you are not paying attention to current events or the current political mood then you may not be aware of how the discussion is changing. I can't blame you if you are not. It is very depressing to delve deeply into politics and with all that is going on in the world it is a bad time to reflect on world events as more and more cards line up against the western world, the United States, where I happen to reside; and build toward looming ethnic super-conflicts. Such as the accelerated growth of radical Islam in the past century pressing Western and Islamic civilizations towards yet another inevitable armed confrontation.

But regardless of events in the rest of the world events in the United States and the direction of our political orientation is driving the country towards its own regional conflict. The fact that modern day culture is shaping itself to be more and more like the mood leading up to the civil war is uncanny. There are some things that are very different and some things that are very similar, but in the end all of these things could mean the revisiting of civil war if we are not careful. Allow me to explain.


1. Economics are Permenantly Dividing People

In the decades leading up to the civil war something unusual happened to America. Only civil war enthusiasts will remember how important a role it played but what happened was something that revolutionized mankind forever and the way it changed human behavior was so radical that it made it impossible for certain people groups to have the same interests. That something was industrialization.

In the North large investment in industry due to large caches of coal and other materials suddenly lifted the lackluster trade economy of the north to explosive levels and very quickly, explosive populations. For centuries the large plantations of the south where cash crops were grown carried a large weight of the economy, but with industrialization the North caught up and in a hurry surpassed the Southern agrarian society in economic power. It also produced a way of living that was radically different than the South. The South, still dependent on cheap or slave labor to man large plantations, produced cash crops that were decreasing in value next to industrially produced goods.

During the late 18th century the anti-slavery movement picked up steam as the public became more and more aware of how slave owners were managing the trade and the issue reached saturation within the public square. By the turn of the century several countries or empires had already banned it and the United States was no exception as the issue was introduced year after year in congress from the turn of the century right up to the civil war.

At first, the abolitionists, almost exclusively funded and supplied by church's and fervent religious movements, began to change the minds of Americans. But what stood squarely in their way was the economic model of the South. As time wore on and the North grew stronger and more productive, it became harder for the South to compete economically and public opinion in the southern states, which at one time had reached a 30-40% favoratism toward abolition, began to decline and move in the opposite direction, in part due to other factors as well. In the North, where economic factors were much more favorable, the movement continued unimpeded until the attitude was almost unanimous.

From that moment on every Northern politician was no longer being heard as saying "free captive people". They were heard as saying, "bankrupt and starv southerners." Likewise the Southern politicians were not head saying, "let us work out these issues in our own time," they were saying, "We will forever enslave anyone we want." No matter how the message was said or no matter how much the goal could or should have been the same (economic stability and freedom without slavery), economic factors forced many to interpret the movement in such an opposite light that a course of action that did not include direct armed conflict became impossible.

Flash forward to today. As America has transformed over the years several things have changed. At times America has wavered between having a large government and a small government. But one thing that has continued to increase without fail has been the size of programs that provide economic assistance. Opinion on these programs has become polarized as they have become much larger. The scope of federal or state programs have grown so much that the number of people that are directly dependent on the government for some sort of economic relief or benefit has grown from roughly less than a third to about half in the last 25 years or so.

This steady rise in dependency on programs has required an increase in government taxation on some, intervention, and oversight on the citizenry to control and manage putting the government squarely into more and more people's lives. What is striking is that the discussion about whether or not government is good if it grows has created alignment largely based upon these economic factors. Those who live without taking advantage of government programs feel the government is intrusive, not trustworthy, needing of more checks and balances, and a burden on the taxpayer. Those who are taking advantage of those programs are far more inclined to favor government oversight, expansion, more taxes, and see its intrusion favorably. Those who are utilizing government programs need them to provide that assistance and as society uses them it structures in such a way that it takes them for granted and then becomes dependent on their existence. Those who do not need them of course feel it is unfair to have to pay for them with their taxes and are inclined to build structures in such a way that does not make these programs available.

Those who tend to break rank usually do based on ideological views. Those who utilize government programs but align against government expansion have an ideological objection to government power and feel threatened by it. Likewise, those who do not need the programs but align with government expansion, tend to have an ideological support of government power and do not feel threatened by it at all.

This alignment is like pre-civil war America because the same factors and reasons for objecting or supporting existed. In the North, those who did not rely on slavery for their benefit could support the right to it based on a strong ideological objection to the government wielding that kind of power. Just like many Southerners who were dependent upon slave labor for economic benefit opposed it due to strong ideological objections to slavery. During the civil war, economic factors, rather than ideological factors, created a material impasse between the two sides. Whereas ideological factors can be worked out with discussion, material factors can only be worked out by material changes. The most immediate and strongest way to change material conditions is war and that is what eventually happened.


2. There Developed a Regional Divide

Although people utilizing government assistance are very well living next door to those who don't everywhere in the country, the tendency to either support or object to these programs has aligned regionally as one side or the other begins to win that power struggle. In pre-civil war America the Northern states slowly regulated their policies and socioeconomic conditions to make it difficult to operate on an agrarian socioeconomic model as their move towards industrialization prompted them to do. In the South policies and socioeconomic changes favored the agrarian/plantation model. In both cases the changes that were made as one side began to over power the other fed the divide until it pushed out the other economic model altogether.

In modern America, the same is in danger of coming to fruition and is beginning to happen. As time progresses we have consistent Red States and Blue States. In Blue states the politics and socioeconomic mood is making it harder and harder to have a privately owned business, or live independently of the government in any way. Likewise, the mood and changes in Red states are slowly beginning to match and make it harder and harder to take advantage of federal programs or state assistance as well as take advantage of government oversight.

Both sets of changes are in their early stages, but are certainly occurring. As one party or platform drives out the other it builds an increasingly difficult structure for the other group to succeed in or navigate. This divide in America is developing regionally, with the Democrats monopolizing the West Coast and the Northeast. On the other hand the Republicans are increasingly securing the Midwestern and Southeastern states. This regionalization creates the possibility of state separationism. It is nearly impossible for a single group to break from the other when they are geographically intertwined, but once they are separated geographically, it becomes much easier and even feeds into it.


3. Demonization and Mistrust Lead to Polarization

The story of abolition and the civil war in America is one that I did not fully understand until I went to graduate school. The kind of education you get in high school or even undergraduate is often not adequate. For that I am grateful and also keenly aware of where America is today.

In the early 19th century the abolition movement was spearheaded almost exclusively by deeply religious people who felt that slavery was wrong because it did not recognize the universal humanity that Jesus taught in the scriptures, nor did it teach love for one's neighbor. The idea of putting another person in bondage without freedom was becoming foreign to a people who saw freedom of salvation spoken so frequently in scripture. In the beginning the movement caused great division in the North and South as the discussion was largely theological. Those on the side of slavery indicated that done respectfully it didn't conflict with scripture and as proof reference passages like Philemon where Paul tells a slave to do the right thing and return to his master and also extols the master to forgive and treat well his servant and treat him like a brother. Abolitionists found slavery to be an institution of man that was contrary to God's nature and just because slavery as an institution was dealt with by those in scripture did not mean the scripture condoned it.

As time wore on the abolitionists made ground against those who supported the right to own slaves. The changes moved faster and became real politically as the North industrialized. But one of the most interesting stories of the civil war is that of William Lloyd Garrison. A man often taught as a champion of the abolition movement he actually joined late in the game and unlike many abolitionists before, he was a journalist rather than a preacher or politician.

Garrison began his abolitionist career in journalism by publishing exposes on slave owners in the South who mistreated their slaves. But on one particular occasion the slave owner filed a lawsuit against Garrison and rather than side with the newspaper, the judge decided with the slave owner. The loss and ensuing ostracizing of Garrison polarized him. Just as sure as Garrison began to lose his faith and move away from believing in the Bible he moved toward more drastic measures.

The religious abolitionists at the time were very keen on approaching the matter with severity but with prudence and without being economically or socially aggressive. Garrison grew increasingly disenfranchised with the religious movement and felt its tactics would never be able to actually win. In the years leading up to the civil war Garrison and many more that followed suit, began to publish stories that exaggerated the truth or even lied in order to convince the populace of the terribleness of slave owners and eventually, Southerners in general.

Garrison's work was met with anger and he was soon not alone. As his reports became more dishonest so did the reports of Southern journalists until a couple of decades of demonizing the other produced a near hatred for Southerns in the North, and a near hatred for Northerners in the South. Just like today, one side would bill the other as untrustworthy, fraudulent, and question their intentions, to the point where conspiracy theories became more and more outlandish and devilish. The other side was represented as ignorant, stubborn, or inconsiderate. It got to the point where it was no longer about slavery, or even federal power, it was about us verses them.

Such an atmosphere made it impossible for either side to appreciate or understand the other's positions. As soon as evil went from being the practice to the person, reconciliation or even tolerance was impossible. Eventually Northern politicians and Southern politicians approached an impasse where nothing that could be done by either side could be tolerated by the other. Population and other small factors placed the Republican North in majority power to make changes they believed were very necessary and righteous on a federal level, but they were changes that Southern politicians and people's could no longer tolerate and they separated from the North, seceding from the Union. Had the Southerners been in power during that time, the course of action would have likely been similar by the North.

The same danger resides today as journalists exaggerate the truth and demonize the other side. The only thing that makes it different is that in pre-civil war America, Southerners only had Southern journalists to get information from, just like Northerners only had Northern journalists to get information from. For right now, all Americans have access to the other side's views. This may change with regulation, but for now the division is happening willingly as Americans more and more refuse to take seriously or listen to the those who disagree. When the discussion ends, the war begins.


4. Race or Ethnicity is Used as a Crutch Recruiter

Just like today, ethnicity or race was used to win recruits rather than good arguments or discussion. Although the sheer volume of African slaves versus indentured servants or slaves from Europe polarized the issue of slavery on a racial line, the ethnic divide between Southerners and Northerners was used shamelessly by both sides to win support.

Rather than appeal to a person's reason or sense of righteousness, it was easier to appeal to a person's ethnic heritage. The idea that Southerners and Northers had always been different became more abundant and some cultural distinctions which had not developed at the time, took hold for the simple fact that it differentiated one from the other. Actual ethnicity played a small role in this in that the south was largely Anglo-French with large Black (an actual popular majority at one time) and Native American minorities, the north was largely Anglo-Central European (German, Dutch, Swedish) with a large Scotch-Irish minority. The differences were distinctive enough to produce clear differences which made it easy to decipher one from the other.

In modern America the same tactics are used. The two political factions are becoming more and more dissimilar ethnically and race and ethnicity are used shamelessly to win support. One side uniformly bills White Non-Hispanics as the force behind the other party and a group not to be trusted, calling them oppressive, out-dated, universally discriminative, or privileged. Historically and culturally demonizing the group as a whole despite many of it's prominent politicians being of that ethnic group. On the other side, there is a group of voices billing Non Whites and ethnic minorities as economically freeloading, largely untrustworthy, lazy, or having a criminal culture.

This transition is not complete or even strong as not everyone or even the whole or majority of either party depends upon these labels to gather support. However, their acceptance publicly is becoming disturbing as national news broadcasters, celebrities, films, television shows, and politicians slip them into their speech more and more. As they do, people will naturally be inclined to politically align according to their ethnicity or race. Such alignment makes it very difficult to coexist. When material factors such as culture or race are attached to economic, political, or ideological opposition, cooperation and coexistence become almost impossible and certainly not the natural inclination.

In the same way the North and South began civil enough but slowly the ethnic attachments became stronger and stronger until it was commonplace and the immediate visible appearance of one to the other produced instant conflict whether perceived or real. In the same way, modern America runs the risk of allowing a greater and greater divide as long as such statements and addresses are tolerated. An ideology is something you can fight with words, an ethnicity or race is something that can only be fought with arms. When the enemy is no longer an idea but a person, the battle changes suit along with it.


5.  Both Sides Had a Strong Moral and Respected Platform That Was Universally Appealing

Leading up to the civil war the North and the South both had very strong moral platforms that universally every American could agree with. The North believed that all men should be free and made a very valid point that the freedom of the slave was no exception. It was a technical violation of the constitution to apply the bill of rights equally to some peoples but not others. At one point specifically Blacks were granted partial person-hood in most southern states and were only granted some rights if any at all. The North had a strong moral obligation to free those people and see to it they got just as much protection and rights as their white neighbors, a task that would actually take much longer.

The South, however, had its own moral platform. The issue of slavery meant that the North was deciding on federal action to regulate specific laws to the states. Most every American at the time recognized that as tyranny. The very reason the United States was founded was to avoid a central power controlling everything. Thus allowing local populations to live according to their needs and specific conditions. A central government was responsible only for necessities like defense and treaties and was regulated by a constitution. And they had a point, the federal government regulating specific laws to the states outside those that dealt with foreign affairs or military action were not provided for in the original concept of the constitution. Too much central power meant the power was in the hands of few, not the people, and they could rule against the wishes of the people. Europe had seen this cause oppression and religious intolerance. In the end, Americans felt strongly about both and could go either way. It wasn't as clear cut to them as say the actions of Nazi Germany or the eradication of tens of millions of political opponents by Stalin and Mao Zhedong in communist USSR and China. Each had a strong platform to condemn the other.

In modern America it appears nearly the same. On one hand modern liberals (as they are popularly labelled) feel strongly about economic equality and ensuring everyone has the same amount of material advantage. The idea that some start with more than others is morally offensive as it produces a discrepancy in effort and character versus reward. This prompts them to viciously stand behind social programs and move more towards socialism as a material answer. Conservatives (as they are popularly labelled), however, have an equally strong platform surrounding work ethic, in that it is inherently wrong to live off the labor of others. All peoples should strive to make their own living and not demand that the labor of others provide for them. Taking advantage of others in this way amounts to thievery and/or modern day economic servitude.

Both sides have very valid points and these strong core values drive their movements. They also can produce non-negotiable policies as moral imperatives often do. When these imperatives are not allowed to coexist, they will inevitably produce conflict until one side is subjugated or concedes. The exact same scenario launched the civil war as the two core values of the two sides could no longer coexist behind the strength of their belief.

It is true that America does not have to end this conflict in a civil war. In fact, many times in history it has come close to great conflicts and fallen away. The fact that the current culture brings conflict eerily closer means nothing compared to what the future can hold. The conflict may diffuse and another two values will divide America all over again in a totally different way. Division is part of life, but war does not have to be.