Case Study: The United States Civil War

Description of the Civil War, subsequent Reconstruction period, and relevance to the cause of peace in Palesrael.

Case Study: The United States Civil War

 

An interesting case study to help understand the current Palestinian peace process by analogy is the American Civil War. 

 

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861 when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a large volunteer army, then four more Southern states declared their secession. In the war's first year, the Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In 1862, battles such as Shiloh and Antietam caused massive casualties unprecedented in U.S. military history. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, which complicated the Confederacy's manpower shortages

 

The war, the deadliest in American history, caused 620,000 soldier deaths and an undetermined number of civilian casualties, ended slavery in the United States, restored the Union by settling the issues of nullification and secession and strengthened the role of the Federal government. However, issues affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

 

In 1861, the Southern US states unilaterally denied their continued inclusion in The United States for a variety of reasons, primarily the interest of the South in the ownership of slaves.  Following the division of the United States into two countries, a Civil War followed to resolve the issue of the legitimacy of the partitioning.  In hindsight, I suggest that it was very plausible to simply allow the South to form an independent nation without a Civil War and to wait to see if they wanted to be included in the United States again at a later time and that a very deadly war could have been completely avoided.

 

The American Civil War broke apart a number of families that were inclined to fight for opposing sides of the conflict.  I believe that there were a number of cases of brothers fighting brothers and sons fighting fathers about the underlying political issues with guns instead of words.  After what I believe was the most American casualties in any US war and a great deal of property damage and cost, the South lost the war to the North and was reintegrated into the United States.  A period called The Reconstruction followed, including the abolition of slavery followed with the eventual return to bipartisan political processes.

 

Reconstruction (1863/1865-1877) was the attempt by the federal government of the United States to resolve the issues of the American Civil War (1861-1865), after the Confederacy was defeated and slavery ended. Reconstruction addressed how secessionist Southern states would return to the Union, the civil status of the leaders of the Confederacy, and the Constitutional and legal status of the Negro Freedman. After the Civil War, violent controversy erupted throughout the South over how to tackle those issues.

 

The start of Reconstruction is often dated to the capitulation of the Confederacy in 1865, although some historians date it to 1863, the year of the Emancipation Proclamation. The constitutional amendments and legislative reforms that laid the foundation for the most radical phase of Reconstruction were enacted from 1865 until 1870.

 

By the 1870s Reconstruction had made some progress to provide the former slaves with equal rights under the law, including the right to vote, and with education to achieve literacy. During Reconstruction, most states in the South established public education, although funding was variable. However, much of the initial progress towards equal rights was rolled back between 1873 and 1877, when conservative whites (calling themselves "Redeemers") took power throughout the former Confederacy. In 1877 President Rutherford Hayes withdrew federal troops, causing the collapse of the remaining three Republican state governments. Through the enactment of Jim Crow Laws and through extralegal means, the Redeemers subsequently enforced a system of racial segregation which stayed in place throughout the South into the 1960s.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction

 

There are a number of really few good parallels between the American Civil War and the Palestinian war for liberation.   First of all, Palestine and Israel really have a lot of cousins on both sides of the border with the same result: "broken families."  This large degree of inbreeding is why I like to call Palestine and Israel collectively, Palesrael.  Secondly, peace was finally reached after the end of the war and a political remedy that eventually led to "reasonably happy commiseration."  Simply put, you are not going to please all the people all the time.  But, people can emigrate either individually or en masse if they are still unhappy.  I really don't think this will happen in the near future of Palesrael other than a large number of Palestinians finally returning to their homeland.

 

However, I suggest that this is not a good model for a political solution because of the emphasis on "winner takes all" strategy: the Confederacy was painfully reintegrated into the Union by force.  If Palesrael would like to see a lasting peace in the near future, I suggest that the negotiators must find a win/win agreement.  It is considerably better and less prone to further diplomatic or military strife to have a "bilateral reconstruction process" with a large amount of support in the public.  However, I mention this case to illustrate "a successful end to hostilities through a political remedy."  At this point in history, most Americans consider themselves to be Americans far more than Yankees (Northerners) or Rebels (Southerners.)  While the process was very taxing upon the people even after the war was over, the end result is something that most modern Americans support more than a two state solution at this time in history, and probably ever since 25 years after the American Civil War.

 

150 years later, the Union and the Confederacy are still united in our commiseration.

Reviews

[kim]

Very nice- you educate the reader, and state your beliefs, theories well. As a born and bred Southerner, you've done a good job with this.

[Genie]

Gabe, what an amazing work you've got going here! I've read most and skimmed all the chapters, and your hard work and research are most impressive. Bravo!

As a child of the South who lives in the North and who is the child of a Southern mother and a Yankee father, who went to school in both parts of the country, I can tell you the Civil War lives on. At least in small pockets of the country and/or individuals. Maybe not with the official intensity that pitted brother against brother, etc., but there's a reason why it's still called -- at least in the South -- That Late Unpleasantness.

Emily noted one place that seceded, at least for a while; it's important to note, too, that not all Southern states were "for" the war. I don't remember my history well enuf at this point to be certain of details, but I do know that North Carolina was very late going into the war, and that only after considerable politicking. There were others as well, but I can't remember which ones.

It's also important to note that not all landowners in the South were slaveholders. Many families such as my mother's paid all their farmhands and/or plantation workers (plantation being relative here -- they weren't all huge tobacco- or cotton-growing enterprises, but more like large farms) the same. Didn't matter what the color of their skin was. My great-great aunt's family owned no one. African-American and White Americans worked side by side for equal pay, equal housing, equal education. This put the "landowners" at great risk, and all the workers knew it, but Aunt Lizzie and her family knew what was right for everyone.

Still, your comparison between the US Civil War and the wars in the Holy Land have many similarities, and you make many valid points. I think the same can be said, as well, for the ravages in South and Central America, Northern Ireland, Indonesia, Chad, the Balkans, Armenia ... and on and on and on and on, ad infinitum. In the Holy Land -- and, no doubt, elsewhere, you can add theology and religion into the mix (see Northern Ireland, i.e.). And centuries of tribal influences.

If more people can come to see Israel and Palestine as you write of Palesrael, the sooner such a union will come into being and the stronger it will be. To my thinking, the only way that's going to happen is if BOTH countries -- if ALL countries -- put down their guns at the same time and refuse to pick them up again. Ever.

Wow, Gabe -- thanks for making me think!

[J. Hampton]

Excellent piece...Excellent

Then again...the reviews are almost as interesting as the peice itself..( mark of a job well done)

I agree with the parrallel drawn ... between the Palestinian war and the Civil war here ..."CIVIL" ...odd tern that stuck ...no ?

Emily schooled me ... on the Winston Free State until sometime up in the 1960s when it was re-admitted to the state."

I think as a country of individuals...we have become a true melting pot...from within the states as well as so many from other nations making the US their home. A miriad of views and intrests...but I don't feel there is a carry over of conferderate or union thinking residually intact anymore...although...electoral votes carry weight of economically predominant influence...which can often be drawn socio-demographically to some degree.

Blesssssssssssss

..."

[The Archangel Gabriel]

C.R.-

> I've just read this chapter so far...The war in Palestine has been going on since the first crusades. The odds of it ending any time soon are slim to none--

Quite possible. Well, we can hope. The whole thing (book) is kind of going to drag out as there is a lot of important information. So far, both Abbas and Olmert have recently agreed to tentative terms for an agreement around the end of 2008 or early 2009 timetable. It remains to be seen if this can be achieved, but if it can, I want to have a really long book memorializing the event before it takes place. Even if they can get it passed (and presumably past a referendum in both countries), there will probably still be extremists. Signing a peace treaty and actually having peace are two different matters.

> A win-win would please niether side because the extremeists are never going to allow something to pass that helps their enemy. That is why the fight goes one because both sides insist on a winner take all. It's a high stakes game for them. Their holy land, their heritage is at stake, not thier wealthfare.

Yes, it is a very difficult situation. You are right about the "winner takes all" mentality - it is generally looked at as either a matter of "all Palestine" or "all Israel." Usama (a minority leader) recently said that he would not support anything short of complete ejection. However, Hamas is willing to go with a ceasefire with 1967 borders (or something comparable). If Hamas and Fatah BOTH sign off on the agreement as well as a referendum, it will be difficult for people to raise much support for continued hostilities.

But, that agreement is about the most difficult one to draft. You are right about a "high stakes game." How do you tell people that some of their deeply religious and cultural heritage will be in the hands of their current enemy? I just say, "In war, everybody is a loser. Let's just all lose less."

Thanks for your review and insightful comments.

-Gabe

[C.R. Vard]

I've just read this chapter so far...The war in Palestine has been going on since the first crusades. The odds of it ending any time soon are slim to none--A win-win would please niether side because the extremeists are never going to allow something to pass that helps their enemy. That is why the fight goes one because both sides insist on a winner take all. It's a high stakes game for them. Their holy land, their heritage is at stake, not thier wealthfare.

It is also important to note that most slaves after the civil war simply returned working for their masters with minimal wages and little hope of ever advancing-Russel Crow laws were repressing the slaves to keep them on their plantations. So the wealthy plantation owners lost little in the long run.

I'd also like to comment on Emily's comment...I'm willing to bet my life that the majority of the northeast votes democrat in the next election.

[Emily B]

So many points for discussion here. I have to assume you are aware of Winston County Alabama which seceded from the state and was there after known as the Winston Free State until sometime up in the 1960s when it was re-admitted to the state.

The border states were indeed important. Lincoln worried over Kentucky continually. It was his belief that if Kentucky were lost, so would the Union be lost. And for a few brief weeks in 1863 the Kentucky government changed hands before the Confederates were pushed back th Nashville.

You might be wrong about the average American not considering themselves as Union or Confederate. Kentucky counties are predominately Republican or Democrat. If you ask men between the ages of 20 and 50 from the hills if they will vote for so and so, you'll hear something like, 'oh, no, my grand-daddy'd come up out of his grave and whup me if I voted for anything other than . . .' It's personal theory on my part, I think that counties with Unionist sympathies vote Republican. Counties that were primarily confederate vote Democrat. Just a theory.