I’ve been a student of our American Civil War since I was 10 years old. I first delved into that conflict in Mr. Greer’s fifth grade class in 1965, when the nation observed the centennial of Lee’s surrender at Appomattox, effectively ending the war. That summer, our family visited Gettysburg National Battlefield in Pennsylvania. I vividly remember standing on Cemetery Hill at the very spot where Pickett’s Charge failed to break the Union center on the third day of that dreadful 1863 battle—widely regarded as the “high-water mark of the Confederacy.” The war that had started at Fort Sumter in April 1861 would grind on for another two years, until the surrender of rebel armies in the spring of 1865.
For most of the last two decades, I’ve taught history at Allan Hancock College, and I showed scenes of that decisive moment from the 1994 movie Gettysburg to each of my classes that covered the Civil War.
I’ve also been watching with growing dismay as our nation has become dangerously polarized, to the point where many observers are issuing stern warnings of an impending “second civil war.”
I hesitate to compare any Civil War battle with the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, but as a loyal American, I took special offense as that angry mob paraded the Confederate battle flag under the dome of our Capitol. Over the entire four years of the Civil War, Confederate flags had never entered the capital; but on that day last year, the banner of Southern insurrection insulted our seat of government.
Could the violence on Jan. 6 be another Fort Sumter, the opening battle in a new civil war? Or is it more accurately compared to Pickett’s Charge, the high-water mark of this appalling wave of national hostility and right-wing extremism? If it’s Fort Sumter déja vu, ever more violent forces of insurrection threaten new levels of unrelenting domestic terrorism.
One scholar of the Civil War has warned that the nation now faces a threat even more dangerous to our democracy than Fort Sumter. Heather Cox Richardson asserts that the intent of the Jan. 6 rioters—to prevent the peaceful transfer of power and overturn the results of the election—was far more serious than the secession by 11 Southern states in 1860-61. The South did not seek to reverse Lincoln’s election and retain the presidency, even though the Illinois lawyer had won with less than 40 percent of the popular vote. Instead, they simply chose to withdraw altogether from the nation to sustain their “peculiar institution” of slavery.
What threatens our democracy now is the constant drumbeat of doubts about the very legitimacy of the institutions that have served us so well for so long. Winston Churchill has noted that “democracy is the worst possible form of government—except for any other form of government,” and few among us would or should dispute that conclusion. Yet more and more Americans are finding their votes frustrated by high-tech gerrymandering, court-ordered limits to enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and voter suppression measures designed to inhibit voting by minorities or younger voters.
How can we challenge the narrative of an impending “second civil war”? Can we recover the sense of national unity and common purpose that has distinguished our democracy for almost 250 years? Can we assure that Jan. 6 was, at worst, a “high-water mark” of extremism?
We can begin by continuing to prosecute those responsible for Jan. 6. Already, more than 840 individuals face criminal charges and more than 180 have been convicted, with jail or prison time for at least 80. Now it is up to Attorney General Merrick Garland to indict the major ringleaders of the riot, especially the circus master himself, Donald Trump. A trial, conviction, and punishment of the former president would go far toward extinguishing the incendiary threat that he still poses from Mar-a-Lago.
And finally, we can all take steps to educate ourselves and our communities about the continuing threat of right-wing extremism and domestic terrorism, whether it’s from the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers, or any local self-styled “militia” groups. We can challenge the conspiratorial ideology of the “3 percenters,” who believe that an armed resistance must remove “tyrannical” government and call openly for violent revolution. We can support organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center or People for the American Way, whose founder Norman Lear turned 100 years old in July.
Time will tell whether Jan. 6 was “Fort Sumter” or the “high-water mark,” but we’ll know more when we see the results of this year’s election—and even better, the 2024 election. I’m hoping that by that time, we might be celebrating another Appomattox: The total defeat of right-wing extremism, the salvation of American democracy, and the return to some semblance of national unity. Δ
John Ashbaugh has been engaged in local politics since arriving in SLO County in 1977. Write a response for publication by emailing letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Aug 4-14, 2022.
Yes I read Heather as well I posed this question to her recently which is are we headed, or already on, a path to a form of federalism? While the LG accelerated the polarities he tapped into what was always there under the surface and probably will only get worse. With cities like Bakersfield getting even redder would we actually be safer from out and out civil war simply if we said “Ok you folks that want to return to the 50’s may all move to say Texas or Idaho and fend for yourselves” So many of the 30% already count on revenue from the blue population centers anyway could we do well for both parties to shed them if that’s what makes them happy? Even here in CA I’ve always wondered why we haven’t split into three states gaining senators. Obviously I have no idea how this would all take place but it could. Sorry to ramble here but I would be interested in your take as a history instructor.
Do you really think that a crusade against the Right is going to help us “recover the sense of unity and common purpose” that once existed? Hardly. As long as liberals are so selective about political violence, only opposing that from the right, while endorsing the political violence of the left, the outrage expressed by the left will be viewed as mere opportunistic political theater. People noticed that much of the left cooed in delight over the George Floyd riots, including Kamala Harris who raised bail money for the rioters. People also recall the loud complaints of the left over the 2016 election, and their false claims that Mueller disproved showing Russian collusion. How is Trump questioning the 2020 election different than Democrats questioning the 2016 election, and engaging in stunts to try and subvert the Electoral College? If trying to frustrate electoral outcomes is wrong, explain the Democrats who campaigned to have Trump impeached even before he was sworn in, and the two failed impeachment attempts. The convenient hypocrisy of the Left is unlikely to bring us together.
The opening battles of the next Civil War were started in 2020 with the burning of our cities during the “peaceful protests.”
No, Tony, 93% of Black Lives Matter and related demonstrations were peaceful. I participated in one organized by the NAACP in Atascadero. We closed with a prayer and our former chief of police was present.
Gordon, that leaves 7% which were violent and which had a very big impact, especially if you were one of those killed, or had your business burned or looted. And, during the 1/6 capitol riot, only a few hundred people actually attacked cops and entered the Capitol, out of around 20,000 people at the demonstration. It, too,was “mostly peaceful”, yet to jear people on the left tell it, it was a mass insurrection. Sorry, but as much as you folks on the left object to your BLM riots being compared to the 1/6 riot, it is unavoidable.
Loving the lazy whataboutism, John.