American Anxiety: Modern America and the Ghosts of Civil War
Although it ended over 150 years ago, the American Civil War continues to be fought. In the shadow of the Daniel Lady Farm, the site of a Confederate Field Hospital during the Battle of Gettysburg, re-enactors from across the country gather to fight for the Confederacy once more. Facilitated by the American Battlefield Trust alongside a network of passionate history buffs and re-enactment groups, the events that marked the bloody conflict for the soul of America continue to play out.
Fought between 1861 and 1865, the American Civil War was the deadliest conflict in U.S. history with more American deaths than in both world wars combined. It was the war that freed four million African American slaves and set the United States on a path of national rebirth. Eleven Southern states seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, determined to defend the institution of slavery which underpinned Southern society.
Looking at America today, it would be an exaggeration to suggest the United States is on the brink of civil war given its booming economy and robust political system. However, American discourse on the Civil War remains ever present. Today, pervasive civil war anxiety and alarmist fears of a second civil war are reaching a fever pitch, fuelled by increasing political division. In August 2022 a national poll found that 40% of Americans considered a civil war likely within the next ten years. Fears of violence are also present in the halls of power. Recently, a Georgia state Senator Colton Moore gave an explicit warning that any attempt to imprison former President Donald Trump would lead to trouble. Stating ‘I don’t want to have to draw my rifle’, Moore, though a fringe figure in US politics, speaks to the feelings of a not so insignificant portion of society that has become disenchanted by modern day America.
Most recently, civil war anxiety has also been exacerbated by a standoff between the state of Texas and the federal government. Republican Governor Greg Abbott of Texas defied an order from the Supreme Court to remove razor wire from the southern border and give access to federal agents. Abbott has argued that the immigration crisis is an ‘invasion’ and characterised his stand, already backed by a number of Republican governors, as defending America from drug dealers and agents of the Mexican cartels.
Civil war anxiety has been most visible in media spaces. An upcoming A24 film, Civil War, depicts a nightmare scenario in which a coalition of rebel states, including California and Texas, secede from the Union leading the federal government to bomb its own people in an effort to prevent the rebels from marching on Washington. This anxiety is not new; even out of relative stability of the 1990’s, America was already looking towards a new enemy within. HBO released a film in 1997 simply called the Second Civil War where an immigration crisis causes a showdown between Idaho and the federal government that predictably spirals into violence.
In many ways, America’s civil war anxiety and fractious political climate are in themselves shaped by relics of the Civil War. The Confederate flag remains a contentious symbol, frequently co-opted by the political right with many being brought into the halls of The Capitol during the January 6th insurrection. Perhaps more significant are the over 2,000 Confederate memorials across the country, many erected during Jim Crow. These rusting statues often act as political flashpoints. For example, one of the goals of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia was to oppose the removal of a statue of Confederate general Robert E. Lee. The debate around the role of Confederate monuments has fed a growing culture war, a movement that is deeply tied to the legacy of the Civil War.
Pat Buchannan, the Republican who warned of a the culture war in his 1992 speech to the Republican National Convention, described a battle against ‘American heroes and history and tradition’. He specifically noted the demands to remove the Confederate flag from the state flag of Mississippi before denying that the flag ever represented slavery. Buchannan claimed that the tearing down of Confederate statues, flags, and symbols was a slippery slope that would inevitably result in the toppling of national monuments including the faces of the slave holding presidents on Mount Rushmore.
This idea of a battle for history can certainly be seen in Civil War historical revisionism. Though slavery has nominally been explained as the root cause of the Civil War, many have endorsed an alternative history in which the noble South was motivated by the preservation of states’ rights in the face of a tyrannical government made up of northern elites. As part of this claim, the Civil War is reframed as a ‘war of northern aggression’, giving rise to what is often dubbed ‘the lost cause’. This myth, detached from historical fact, has repeatedly been indirectly endorsed by politicians. When questioned about the cause of the Civil War, Republican Presidential candidate Nikki Haley omitted the role of slavery, stating instead that it was about ‘how government was going to run, the freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do’. By contrast, those on the political left have been quick to challenge this reading of history. In a recent speech, President Biden called the states’ rights narrative ‘a self-serving lie’ before explicitly describing the war as one fought over the issue of slavery.
In many ways, America never moved on from its Civil War. In monuments and re-enactments, in speeches and political theatre, its narrative continues to be debated and reshaped as America itself seeks to change. The prevailing civil war anxiety of modern America is not only a symptom of the United States’ fractured political landscape but also an evolution of the civil war culture that continues to haunt it.
Image courtesy of Gene H via Flickr, ©2007. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
