America’s Next Civil War Will Be Worse Than Our Last

The American Spectator ^ | 07/26/18 | H. W. Crocker III

[Enlightened1]

Of that we can be sure.

In the summer of 1862, just weeks before the Battle of Sharpsburg (or Antietam) — the bloodiest single day of fighting in American history — Union Captain George Armstrong Custer attended the wedding of Confederate Captain John “Gimlet” Lea at Bassett Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia, as best man. The Union officer was dressed in blue, the Confederate officer in grey, and Custer being Custer spent the next two weeks flirting with the Southern belle cousin of the bride, even joining her in singing “Dixie.”

At one point she told him, “You ought to be in our army.”

“What would you give me if I resigned my commission in the Northern army and joined the Southern?”

“You are not in earnest, are you?”

 

He wasn’t, of course. Custer was nothing if not loyal, and he believed that he was bound to the Union by the oath he had sworn at West Point, whatever his affection for Southern officers and their ladies.

Such gallantry seems unthinkable today, when members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants and theatres, and Confederate officers like John Lea, if they are remembered at all, are considered precursors of the German National Socialists, and their once famous and respected commanders like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeb Stuart have their statues toppled and banished from public squares, their names stripped from public schools, and their memories spat upon and disgraced.

[Enlightened1]

Of that we can be sure.

In the summer of 1862, just weeks before the Battle of Sharpsburg (or Antietam) — the bloodiest single day of fighting in American history — Union Captain George Armstrong Custer attended the wedding of Confederate Captain John “Gimlet” Lea at Bassett Hall in Williamsburg, Virginia, as best man. The Union officer was dressed in blue, the Confederate officer in grey, and Custer being Custer spent the next two weeks flirting with the Southern belle cousin of the bride, even joining her in singing “Dixie.”

At one point she told him, “You ought to be in our army.”

“What would you give me if I resigned my commission in the Northern army and joined the Southern?”

“You are not in earnest, are you?”

 

He wasn’t, of course. Custer was nothing if not loyal, and he believed that he was bound to the Union by the oath he had sworn at West Point, whatever his affection for Southern officers and their ladies.

Such gallantry seems unthinkable today, when members of the Trump administration are hounded from restaurants and theatres, and Confederate officers like John Lea, if they are remembered at all, are considered precursors of the German National Socialists, and their once famous and respected commanders like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Jeb Stuart have their statues toppled and banished from public squares, their names stripped from public schools, and their memories spat upon and disgraced.

The difference between the America of today and the America of what seems like just yesterday is that we once had a common culture. As recently as 1990, Ken Burns could make a Civil War documentary for PBS and let historian Shelby Foote wax eloquent on the martial prowess of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest —  something that now would likely get them both tarred, feathered, and Twitter-banned.

Yes, there were big differences between North and South a century and a half ago. The South was a slave-holding, free-trading, libertarian-leaning, conservative Christian, agricultural, aristocratic Sparta, while the North was a commercial, industrial, protectionist, Transcendentalist, social gospel, democratic Athens. But they held far more in common than separated them — beginning with the fact that, as Lincoln observed, “Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God.”

In the end, the war was fought over a single legal issue: whether the states that had freely ratified the Constitution to form the Union could freely leave the Union if they felt it no longer served their interests.

One need only compare the Confederate Constitution to the United States Constitution to see that the former bears a striking resemblance to the latter. And far from being a national socialist charter, the Confederate Constitution puts even more restraints on federal power and limits the president to one six-year term.

The great seal of the Confederacy bears the image of George Washington, many of whose relatives served with the Confederacy, including Lieutenant James B. Washington, a West Point classmate of Custer’s (the two had a famous picture taken together — Washington was a prisoner of war — a few weeks before Lea’s wedding).

North and South venerated the Founders. They shared the same language, the same religion, and, in large part, the same general stock. Most of all, they shared what Jeff Sessions was recently rebuked for calling an “Anglo-American heritage” of liberty under law, stretching from the mists of medieval England — even before Magna Carta — to our own Bill of Rights.

Today, however, our divisions are so deep and fundamental that Americans cannot even agree on what marriage is or what a man or a woman is (which is pretty darn fundamental).

The lunatic self-righteousness of the Left (and yes, I’m afraid one must point fingers here), where disagreement is bigotry to be prohibited by law or even condemned and prosecuted as treason, is a consuming, destructive fire that will not be easily quenched, and cannot be reached by cool waters of rational argument.

So what to do? We can start by trying to stop the Left’s war on America’s past, which is poisoning the well-spring of our national identity. If William McKinley, a Union officer turned president, could approve a Confederate memorial at Arlington Cemetery, it seems to me that we can at least be as understanding of our own history. Let us remember that President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who ordered the 101^stAirborne Division to help desegregate Arkansas’s public schools, kept a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office at the White House and admired him as a hero (as did, incidentally, George C. Marshall, whose anti-fascist bona fides are rather more profound than Antifa’s, I reckon).

We could also try to lighten the mood a little. I’ve conscripted Custer for this very purpose in a series of novels that imagine he survived the Battle of the Little Big Horn to become a gun-slinging Western do-gooder, riding under the pseudonym of Marshal Armstrong. There’s some real history in these books, but the point is to regain a rational, even if nostalgic, perspective on our past by eliciting laughter. America’s story is a glorious adventure — not a grim catalogue of irredeemable sins. The sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-progressive-god sermonizing that comes at us in endless, stultifying repetition from the press, Hollywood, and academia — today’s hysterical, bug-eyed, Puritan witch-burners — is the acid-bath dissolving our culture and our nation.

 

If America is to come together again, it will do so only through the restoration of what Lincoln called our mystic chords of memory, a common culture that emerges from a shared and sympathetic understanding of our past — the sort of shared understanding that can bring a Union and a Confederate officer to a wedding, and former Union General George Armstrong Custer, alias Marshal Armstrong, to the rescue.

Historian and novelist H. W. Crocker III’s most recent book, Armstrong, publishes August 14 and is available for pre-order at Amazon and all good book shops.       

[redgolum]

If we have another war, it will not be as nice and civilized as the last one.

And yes, the Civil War was rather “tame” compared to others like.

[rhinohunter]

Ping

[DiogenesLamp]

I think the conservative side will win this time because they have most of the guns, and the liberals mostly live in the City which would become death traps.

A few insurgents can bring a city to it's knees in a week, let alone what an army of them can do.

[castlegreyskull]

The last one was really a failed war for independence. I think traditionally, Civil Wars fight for control of the entire country.

[dsrtsage]

The left only has random acts of violence that the right simply doesn’t react to. They are like the little yip yip dog constantly attacking and nipping at the large dog who just wants to enjoy a nap. There comes a time that the big dog finally has enough and pounces upon the annoyance, and the brave yip yip dog scurries away whining and crying

The right has the guns, and the discipline. When the right is forced to act, the cowards on the left will learn the definition of shock and awe.

[cdcdawg]

It won’t be a civil war, it will be an extermination/genocide like what is about to happen in South Africa. Give it about 30 more years of “demographic change”.

[farming pharmer]

As long as there is overwhelming debt, beer and football on TV, there isn't going to be another civil war.

People can't even feed themselves these days. You going to feed an army on raiding 7-11s while their family goes bankrupt and starves to death?

[ealgeone]

I think the conservative side will win this time because they have most of the guns, and the liberals mostly live in the City which would become death traps.

I would not underestimate the Left on this issue. History shows they will be ruthless in their goal. They do not play by our rules nor have our morality.

Recall Ayers said it would take ~20m casualties to bring about the kind of change they wanted. And I believe he was deadly serious.

[TTFlyer]

This so-called “union” will dissolve. Bank on it.

[Texan Tory]

“They are like the little yip yip dog constantly attacking and nipping at the large dog who just wants to enjoy a nap.”

Yep. Or like jackals nipping at a lion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfHAiIq-Yeo

[Delta 21]

Are their 600,000 liberals who are brave enough to give it a go?

I’m ready. Dont think its gonna be much of a fight. Normal fightin rules apply.

1. If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics SUCK.

2. No cease fires, white flag surrenders, “tapping out” or any “humanitarian” efforts. We swore to kill each other, remember?

3. (feel free to add your own)

[ProtectOurFreedom]

Good article. Thanks for posting.

[DiogenesLamp]

I would not underestimate the Left on this issue. History shows they will be ruthless in their goal. They do not play by our rules nor have our morality.

Oh, I don't trust them at all. I just note that Cities have become ever more on thinner ice, year after year. I've also noticed that there are fewer men like existed in the WWII era, and a lot of what passes for the left's army are sissy boys who cannot stomach a real fight.

Back in the 1950s, even the leftists had guts and determination. This modern crop looks like they will cry if they get a defeat.

The entire society has become softer and less able to endure hardship. Stupider too.

Recall Ayers said it would take ~20m casualties to bring about the kind of change they wanted. And I believe he was deadly serious.

Ayers is just lucky he never attracted the attention he wanted. Had he been perceived as a real threat, he would have been a greasy spot a long time ago.

[BDParrish]

We were able to fight in 1776 under legitimate authorities. The colonial governments raised troops and patriots mustered in not only under a view of moral right and patriotic duty, but obedience to legitimate law.

We fought in 1861 under legitimate authority. In the south, people felt that their state governments had the authority to raise troops to repel invasion. In the north, people felt that the president had authority to raise troops to put down what amounted to another whiskey rebellion. As Washington did, so Lincoln can do.

Whether one agrees with either of these ideas or not is irrelevant. My simple contention is that our side WILL NOT fight outside of legitimate constituted authority.

I do not see how this can happen in our current society. Sure a few hotheads here and there will maybe lynch some leftists, and sure there will be some self-defense incidents, but that is not civil war and it will not make any real difference.

I invite correction, please.

[mikeus_maximus]

War over contrasting ideologies in a godless society (as ours is now) is much, much worse than the AWC in general. Everyone would be considered an enemy combatant, not just soldiers. But the problem with these “another civil war is coming” histrionics is that they fail to recognize there are no geographic boundaries between the opposing sides— they are interspersed. If there is fighting, it won’t be war; it will be anarchy.

[PUGACHEV]

Unlike 1860, the are not two sides in conflict clearly defined by state lines and culture. Instead, there is a general disillusionment concerning many things. The sides in conflict are not two, but many. A civil war now would begin more like the disorganized and chaiotic start the Russian Revolution, than the organized attack on Ft. Sumpter.

[TADSLOS]

Libs are going to find out the hard way that there are no re-spawns.

There are no do overs.

And Mr. 5.56 round at 3000 FPS don’t give a damn either.

[central_va]

Unlike 1860, the are not two sides in conflict clearly defined by state lines and culture

BS. What do you think will the states and their governors just dissolve themselves for you? What crock.

[DiogenesLamp]

The last one was really a failed war for independence. I think traditionally, Civil Wars fight for control of the entire country.

This is correct. It was part of the propaganda to portray 11 states who used the Democratic process to separate as "Rebels" and to call their efforts to be independence a "Civil War". The propaganda is still working today, because most people call it a "Civil War" without a second thought.

"The War of Northern Aggression" is more accurate, as would be "The War for Southern independence." But the people that win (four times the population) can force people to use the terminology that paints them in the best light.