War is a seemingly inevitable act engaged upon by two or more groups of people. This violent ritual is assumed to be ingrained within the human condition, and has been conducted for as long as any man could remember. However, despite war being as old as humanity itself, the concept of a revolution is quite new. While war could be fought for God, gold, or resources, there are intrinsic characteristics that distinguish a modern revolution from any other forms of conflict. With the mention of revolution, several examples immediately come to mind. Many learned of significant events such as the American Revolution or the French Revolution which serve to be dominant exemplars of what a revolution entails. Yet, what exactly makes them a revolution? Using this train of thought, could the American Civil War be thought of as the United States of America’s second revolution? Through careful analyses of political theorists such as Hannah Arendt, and several other external sources, this essay will serve to not only explain why the American Civil War can be viewed as a revolution, but it will also exemplify what a revolution is in its most basic form, where the term originated from, and why the Civil War was not taught as a revolution.
Before being able to understand why the American Civil War was a revolution, one must first learn of a revolution’s own properties that distinguish it from a war. The word “revolution” is defined as to mean an instance of an object revolving and ultimately coming back to its original state. The Earth is an object in revolution with the Sun as it revolves in an elliptical path constantly in cycles. How does this definition of a revolution coincide with historic battles like the American Revolution? The correct answer is that it doesn’t, and that at some point, the word grew to encompass a new meaning.
The coming of the modern age brought new technological advances and new ways of thinking in which individuals thought of their lives as not preordained paths but things they could control. As Arendt stated “[t]he ancient cycle of sempiternal recurrences had been based upon an assumedly ‘natural’ distinction of rich and poor” and the new conditions within the Americas “had broken this cycle once and for all” (Arendt 13). Individuals began to take their lives into their own hands as they grew aware that they were not ‘naturally’ destined to a life of poverty or whatever circumstance they found themselves in. Through these circumstances and the new autonomy within individuals, humans began to believe that they could make radical changes within their own lives and political systems. No longer would someone simply accept their fate as destiny. The isolation and abundant resources in America laid the groundwork for a new philosophical train of thought which can be seen through thinkers like John Adams who had stated he “always [considered] the settlement of America as the opening of a grand scheme and design in providence for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth” (Arendt 13). In a sense, those previously thought to be subjected to poverty indefinitely would have the power to rise and be emancipated from bondage.
This ideology is integral to the formation of the new meaning of revolution. In the new sense, a revolution “is a tumultuous and transformative event that attempts to change a nation, a region or society – in some cases, even the world” (alphahistory). Unlike the original definition, this new meaning does not wish to restore a government or political system to an original state, but to create something entirely new. The concept of new beginnings became tied together with the act of revolting and it soon “appeared to revolutionary men more important to change the fabric of society, as it had been changed in America prior to its revolution, than to change the structure of the political realm” (Arendt 15). The empowerment felt within people gave them the courage to question not only themselves, but the governments and organizations that ruled them. The divine right supposedly bestowed upon kings and queens lost its significance as philosophies from the Enlightenment grew stronger. Men viewed each other as equal entities and thus, the idea of being able to change the fabric of a society evolved alongside the the meaning of the word revolution.
If one specific instance could be pointed out in which the meaning of revolution was first used paradoxically, it would be in 1688 in reference to the Glorious Revolution in England. Before this crucial event, the word revolution was used in the same context as its original definition. Men would use the word “clearly as a metaphor, carrying over the notion of an eternal, irresistible, ever-recurring motion to the haphazard movements, the ups and downs of human destiny, which have been likened to the rising and setting of sun, moon, and stars since immemorial” (Arendt 33). Revolution was not spoken of in a political sense, as it was spoken to describe recurring events that seemed indefinite. These events were as old as time, and no human could possibly alter these event even if they tried. Much weight was put onto the word, and it appeared as if these forces were controlled by God, Himself. However, revolution became politicized after the restoration of the monarchy in England in 1688. In what was coined “The Bloodless Revolution”, the Stuarts were expelled and the kingly power was taken from King James II and transferred to prince William III of Orange and his wife, Mary II. This event lead to the renewal of the former righteousness of the monarchy, and at the same time, cemented the use of the word in a political sense. After this glorious revolution, many organizations tried engaging in similar conflicts with the aim to not overthrow, but to restore a government to its previous glory. Despite that, the revolutionary “actors became aware of the impossibility of restoration and of the need to embark upon an entirely new enterprise”(Arendt 35). This trend of needing to completely change the fabric of society and start anew accompanied a majority of the conflicts aimed at originally trying to restore a regime, and as time progressed, the meaning of revolution was remolded. Why would man try to save that which cannot be saved, and thus, when a group became dissatisfied and revolutionary sentiments arose, man turned to start from new beginning, an act in which “[spelled] the definite end of an old order and [brought] about the birth of a new world” which was “farther removed from the original meaning of the word ‘revolution’” (Arendt 32).
Modern revolutions differ from other conflicts based on their causes and effects. While wars are typically fought for greed or some type of power, a revolution is fought to bring about a new change, as the “revolutions are driven by people and groups inspired by hope, idealism and dreams of a better society” (alphahistory). Griefed with the dissatisfaction of their current state, men begin to group together. As sentiments spread, ideas of a better society begin to develop. If potent enough, these sentiments progress into driving forces that can quickly catalyze the events leading up to a revolution. These driving forces serve as foundations and continually drive the revolutionary spirit of the men. Equipped with hope and the idea of a better society, revolutionaries turn ideas into reality and revolution becomes imminent. Typically the driving force in revolution is freedom from political or economical oppression. This crucial connection between the desire for freedom, and the inclination to renew rather than restore is the reason why “the understanding of revolutions in the modern age is that the idea of freedom and the experience of a new beginning should coincide” (Arendt 19). The major theme of freedom and the desire to renew is not correlation, but primarily causation. Stemming back to the “impossibility of restoration”, the complexity of freedom does not allow for freedom to be achieved through the amendment of a regime. Liberation, which can be defined as the freedom of oppression, is a characteristic of freedom and could be achieved through amendment, however, freedom, which can be defined as the complete ease of access to the political and the public realm of a society, cannot be achieved through simple amendment. The connection is the reason for the causation of renewal by the desire for freedom. Examples of this relationship between freedom and new beginnings can be seen through the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and as you will later see, the American Civil War.
If one were to look back to the 1860’s and take a look at the United States, one would see a very divided nation. Culturally and politically, the northern half of the country was vastly different from the southern half, a contrast that can still be seen today. The North and the South differed on many issues including taxation, representation, and primarily, slavery. By this time, the North had significantly reduced the use of slave labor and relied on the abundant factories and technologies developed during the Industrial Revolution. Thus, the economy was independent of the use of slave labour. This setting was very different from the environment of the South. Due to the suitable soil, and relatively stable climate and temperature, the southern economy relied on farming practices. These farming practices mainly used slave labour as its fuel to spur their economy. In fact, the use of slavery was undoubtedly a southern state’s main source of income, and without it, the state would be virtually crippled. At the same time, initiatives and movements were sweeping the nation as Abolitionists, those who fought against slavery, advocated for the emancipation of slavery based on religious grounds, fueled by the religious movement, the Second Great Awakening. However, “the abolitionist movement did not coalesce into a militant crusade until the 1830s” (History). In the decades leading up to the Civil War, abolitionists battled with slave owners in often radical ways, physically and politically. The 40’s and 50’s were full of violent and angry mobs attacking one and another. Murder was a frequent occurrence during these times, most notably, the murder of the abolitionist editor, Elijah Lovejoy in 1837 which “led many northerners, fearful for their own civil liberties, to vote for antislavery politicians” (History). The north and the south grew distanced from each other, as each side fought over the issue of slavery, which the south guised under the cover of simply states’ rights. Afraid for their liberties, citizens voted for politicians that were either pro-slavery or anti-slavery. Progressively the U.S. government became completely divided to the point where compromise was nearly impossible. The brewing tension finally bubbled over come the presidential election of 1860.
The election of 1860 was “one of the most polarised in US history” (Counterfire). The election was between the Republican political party and the Democratic party, unrelated to the Republican and Democratic political parties of today. Abraham Lincoln was the republican candidate, and represented the abolitionist movement. The Republican party of the time, which “expressed the aspirations of the fast-growing capitalist economy of the North and the fast-expanding pioneer communities of the West”, granted protection for the Northern economy but at the same time, disadvantaged the Southern agricultural lifestyle. Meanwhile, the southern Democratic party, represented by Stephen A Douglass, represented the “conservative agricultural society whose prosperity was largely dependent on export earning from a single commodity: cotton” (Counterfire). Throughout all of the differences in politics, the issue of slavery remained a grand topic, and the outcome of the election represented which side of the country would have their way. The culture and lifestyle of each side was at stake, and each side seemed unwilling to succumb to the other. This tension lead to to the secession of 11 southern states when Abraham Lincoln won the election, “[winning] only 40% of the national popular vote in the 1860 presidential election, but [carrying] almost every county in the Upper North, and [winning] a clear majority of 54% across the North as a whole” (Counterfire).
The Civil War, also known as the Battle for Southern Independence, contains many of the properties that modern revolutions also possess. Many southerners grew tired of their situation, and revolutionary sentiments grew. This desire for liberation from political oppression, or the oppression that the government would cause by creating policies and laws that prohibit fundamental aspects of southern culture, drove the 11 southern states to ultimately secede from the Union and create the Confederate States of America. This desire, or driving force, can be seen through the many songs that were created and sang before and during the Civil War. One highly successful pro-Confederate song, called “The Bonnie Blue Flag” perfectly encapsulates the essence of the desire for liberation within the southerners. The lyrics, “Their motto is resistance –“To tyrants we’ll not yield!”/Shout, shout the battle cry of Freedom!”, exemplifiy the southern sentiments of the era (Civil War Heritage Trails). The immense popularity of the song also displays how easily music can spread a message and affect an individual emotionally. Music has the power to catalyze the spread of sentiments, and can be attributed to keeping revolutionary spirits alive within the war-wearied soldiers.
The driving force of this revolution is similar to the driving force of the revolutionaries during the American Revolution. The colonists felt as if they were being mistreated by the British Government due to issues of taxation without representation and the lack of compromise between the colonies and the British Government. These issues created the great divide between the two entities. The divide and the newfound autonomy that developed in America, gave the colonists the courage to secede from Britain. A similar divide can be seen in the 1860’s United States due to the issue of slavery when looking at the election results. Although Lincoln won the general election, he only won 40% of the popular vote, and “[t]hroughout the South, by contrast, his vote was minimal, and largely restricted to Unionist enclaves” (Counterfire). By simply looking at the statistics of the election, the North and South were distinctly polarized. Using the same autonomy, and looking back at the Revolutionary War as a model, the southern states seceded to form the Confederate States.
Another similar characteristic that could be observed is the necessity that the South felt to secede, or start from new beginnings. The South perceived that they could not maintain their lifestyle or freedom by remaining in the Union, so they felt the need to create a new fabric of society, one called the Confederate States of America. The secession of the South is consistent with the pressure to secede experienced by other revolutionaries entities. As explained before, there is no place for the establishment of the freedom of a group of people through restoration, but only through renewal. The act of renewal completely divided the Union and prompted the start of the Civil War, “ a revolutionary war fought between rival systems and opposing political ideologies” in which there existed “no compromise, no negotiated settlement, no happy half-way house . . . open to Americans as they embarked upon their violent feud in the spring of 1861” (Counterfire). The “rival systems and opposing political ideologies” between a revolutionary group and the original government always leads to separation or renewal because the ideologies of the revolutionaries, which grants these groups more freedoms and liberties, are completely incompatible with the current state of the government. The revolutionary ideology in this case, is the liberty and freedom to use the practice of slave labor. The debate of slavery was only ending in two outcomes, the abolition of slavery, or the continual use of slave labour. The South could in no way, maintain their freedom to use slavery and remain in the Union. To conclude, the South seceded from the Union to create a new fabric of society in which they would have more freedom. In escaping political oppression, they engaged in a war in which they were driven by the driving force of political freedom. Through all of these characteristics, it is only logical to characterize the Civil War as a revolutionary war for the South.
Now that the legitimacy of the Civil War being a revolution has been expressed, I find it questionable as to why the Civil War was not taught as a revolution in public school systems, at least in the northern regions of the United States. During my schooling, and according to many students I’ve talked to, the Civil War was merely referred to as a war to maintain the Union. Although the Civil War was a unit that was taught with great emphasis and detail, it was never once regarded as the second revolutionary war to occur in the United States. Reasons for this maybe the image that the United States wishes to portray itself as. Along with the Civil War, schools go into great emphasis covering the Revolutionary War. The colonists’ decision to revolt was always taught as heroic and justified. Also, the connotation of a revolution always favors the revolutionaries rather than the original government. It is always assumed that there has to be some justified reason that this group is revolting, and that the other group is wrong in some way. Post-Civil War United States may wish to not portray the secession of the South to be just as justifiable as the decision that the colonial British subjects made to secede from Great Britain. The United States might wish to just retell the Civil War as a battle to suppress the rebellion of a group that wishes to continue slavery and at the same time, avoid the negative connotations that come along with being on the other side of a revolution. While it is obvious that the use of slavery is inhumane, unethical, and an outright horrible practice, the act of being in a revolution, even if you are suppressing a horrible practice, only gives off negative implications about the structure of the government in the first place.
By analyzing the fundamental characteristics of revolutions, and looking at examples of historic revolutions, it can be seen that the Civil War could be viewed as a revolution. The South had seceded based on the desire for freedom, and wished to create a new society in which they felt they had more political freedom, all characteristics that are attributed with revolutions. Despite these facts, the education system does not teach the civil war as such, possibly due to the negative implications that come with it. Regardless, the Civil war can be seen as the United State’s Second Revolutionary War.
2017-5-10-1494447282