The 2016 election was certainly historic. Between the rise of the populist right or the fall from grace of the liberal democrats was a huge realignment of mainstream politics in America. In any case, according to the media, a huge divide has occurred and polarized the populace. This rift brings with it questions of other "irreconcilable" rifts in American history, most notably, the American Civil War. Talk of seccession in California after Donald Trump's ascendancy leads one to ask: what would a Second American Civil War look like in the modern day? How would it be fought? How would it start? What would the sides be? This essay looks to answer all these questions and more, using historical precedent and analysis to fully understand the outcome of a conflict between states or between the populace and government. I will put forward several scenarios in which a Civil War begins (or doesn't) in different ways, and how wars of the past combined with new technological and cultural variables can help us decide whether or not starting another Civil War is worth the blood it will inevitably bring. 

​

              First, some housekeeping. Predicting future wars in general is a tricky practice. Far too often biases cloud our judgement with disastrous consequences. The classic troupe of "the war will be over by Christmas" speaks to this tendency for over-optimism in one's military endeavors. Quick and decisive wars, especially ones with a hostile insurgency, are few and far between. Similarly, undervaluing certain assets can lead to logistical issues and tactical blunders. Personal vendettas, experiences, allegiances, and agendas  can all get in the way of honest military analysis. Therefore, take what I'm saying in this essay with a grain of salt. After all, the worst kind of tactician is the internet-armchair type. As a simple college student, obviously I'm no Patton. I have my own personal biases, but through use of historiography I hope to mitigate these preconceived notions and achieve an honest perspective on a hypothetical war. I could be woefully wrong, but that is okay. My methodology going into this analysis is this is in order to accurately predict future wars there is a simple formula: historical wars plus new variables (whether they be technological, ideological, cultural, or any other change in conditions) equals the outcome of the future. The application of the "formula" is easier said than done. To put to much or too little an emphasis on a singular variable renders the outcome void. Same is true for a mistaken analysis of past wars. Nuance is key here. Backing up claims with historical text while defending departure from historical continuity with evidences of change is my plan. Hopefully, this strategy will help all of us come to an understanding of potential conflicts on the horizon.

 

Scenario 0: No War

​

              Most likely the future of America is there will be no second civil war. There is no all encompassing problem which enough citizens are willing to get behind to start such a conflict. The first Civil War began over slavery, or more accurately the states' individual right to make slavery legal or illegal. Unfortunately, we don't have much public opinion data on just how divisive slavery was, and how that ultimately played into the breakout of war, but we do have some good evidence to suggest the division was large and deeply ingrained.  The only issues that come close to the divisiveness of chattel slavery are gun control, abortion, LGBT rights, and racism, but each of these has their own reason why they aren't divisive enough to start a civil war. The 2nd amendment argument is the most egregiously non-encompassing, as according to an October 2018 Gallup poll,  61% of the country is in favor of stricter gun laws. Oddly, this is the most often used justification by right-wing separatists for a civil war (I will go into the fallacious reasoning behind the supposed supremacy of small arms later on). Fact is, there is mostly a political consensus that some manner of new gun control legislation is needed. Notice that consensus is not about taking away guns. Later on in the same Gallup poll, even the idea of an outright ban on handguns is almost universally reviled. There is simply not enough support for the extremist positions to mobilize any sort of movement. Abortion is more interesting. The pro-life position and the pro-choice position have about a 50/50 split in public opinion. That being said, 64% of Americans do not want to overturn the landmark case of Roe v Wade. That is, again, not enough support to facilitate any kind of insurgency to overthrow the government or a state secession. Not to mention, advocates for Pro-life policy do not seem keen on killing people in defense of their position, but stranger things have happened. For now, civil wars over abortion remain the realm of mediocre young-adult books. The LGBT community, especially recently, are becoming more accepted. 75% of Americans believe gay marriage should be legal. 

​

​

Scenario 1: Militia insurrection

 

 

Senator Ted Cruz said, "The Second Amendment to the Constitution isn't for just protecting hunting rights, and it's not only to safeguard your right to target practice, it is a Constitutional right to protect your children, your family, your home, our lives, and to serve as the ultimate check against governmental tyranny--for the protection of liberty." This common right-wing talking point is touted often in the raging gun debate, but how effective would a militia armed only with small arms be in an attempted revolution? In short, not very well. The naivete of believing small arms would win over the largest and most well funded military Earth has ever seen cannot be understated. Those of you shrewd historians in the audience might argue that, "Since Vietnam and Iraq 'beat' America, and they used small arms, that means small arms as a defense against a tyrannical government could work!" However, lets take a closer look at why the United States military (and, by extension, many modern militaries) has/have been so unsuccessful in defeating insurgencies. The Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan is a good place to start. At the beginning of the conflict, the Mujahadeen were taking heavy losses at the hands of soviet airpower, particularly the Hind attack helicopter.  Colonel  Ivchencko notes, "Significant losses in manpower and weapons which rebels suffered as a result of the air strikes and heavy use of attack helicopters, accompanying troops and supply columns, and disrupting rebel plans regarding sabotage of communications, forced ringleaders of the insurgency to improve air defenses of the most important rebel targets, increase effectiveness of anti-aircraft fire, and upgrade forms and methods of air defense against [Soviet - AWW] aviation." In other words, in order for the Mujahadeen to be successful, they needed to neutralize air power. This anti-aircraft support would come in the form of Stinger missiles from the United States. Even then, the insurgents were only successful after the fall of the Soviet Union; they couldn't successfully take control of the government that had the backing of a large traditional military. Instead, they waited until the Russian Federation was too involved in internal strife to strike, thereby fighting a much smaller and less organized force.